Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged the

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Bryan Pregon

Is this high school dress code sexist? - CNN Video - 45 views

www.cnn.com/...kg-high-school-dress-code.kcci

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15
     
    "Some people are calling an assembly dress code at an Iowa high school sexist. CNN affiliate KCCI reports."
  • ...57 more comments...
  • kylecrowl on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.
  • alexander4434 on 16 Mar 15
     
    i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest
  • kdankiw188 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.
  • Cecilia Saldana on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.
  • shandahansen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.
  • dawsonmantich on 16 Mar 15
     
    If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.
  • montanagarbez999 on 16 Mar 15
     
    It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.
  • claireboes on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.
  • peytonjs on 16 Mar 15
     
    This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.
  • desiree13 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.
  • jay_hubbard on 16 Mar 15
     
    The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.
  • noahseyboth on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.
  • jborwick on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.
  • Christopher Daniels on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.
  • bchurch743 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.
  • diegomartinez97 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.
  • danielaespinoza on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.
  • rylanrichards on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.
  • jimmymc731 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.
  • abbyotten on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.
  • jordan_love on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.
  • meganferleman on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.
  • leomendez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up
  • Kevin Branigan on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys
  • rduncan264 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.
  • lcapel742 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.
  • zachmurray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.
  • jesse_lorenzen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.
  • britthutch12 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.
  • swilder988 on 16 Mar 15
     
    With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.
  • mmuffley163 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.
  • zack gray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.
  • dillonpalen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.
  • cschnackel824 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.
  • angel fernandez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.
  • sarahh_821 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.
  • ccannon666 on 16 Mar 15
     
    This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.
  • donaldc802 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.
  • dianaschrader on 18 Mar 15
     
    This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Sep 15
     
    As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?
  • jroberson300 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.
  • anthony309 on 03 Sep 15
     
    No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.
  • baddison753 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony
  • guillermosolorio on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.
  • jjacobs079 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.
  • gabbymorley on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.
  • seanveazie on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.
  • austindueling1 on 03 Sep 15
     
    It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist
  • rallman915 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.
  • ernieclements on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"
  • johnschmidthuber on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.
  • Renee Borgaila on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.
  • tiaross on 03 Sep 15
     
    I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.
  • Sunshine Wink on 03 Sep 15
     
    This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.
  • sophiataylor001 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.
  • katiepetersen005 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.
  • christopher721 on 03 Sep 15
     
    There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.
  • ryanlegg on 08 Sep 15
     
    There should be standards for both men and women but the remarks in the letter was plain sexist.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Is this relevant for a discussion of our dress code or are private schools a different story?
Bryan Pregon

Petition for Texas to secede from US reaches threshold for White House response - U.S. ... - 5 views

usnews.nbcnews.com/...shold-for-white-house-response

petition texas

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • caseyyard on 15 Nov 12
     
    We should all know this is not going to happen. This is more of a state tantrum about wanting their state rights back. Personally I agree completely with the states that are doing this because the federal government is way past the boundary. The federal government is in place to protect us from others not are self's.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • patrick boian on 15 Nov 12
     
    it says clearly that andrew johnson made it so no state for any reason could secede from the union,their will be another election in 4 years o if everybody would just relax and chill everything will be fine
  • joecarbis on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government
  • Jeremy Vogel on 15 Nov 12
     
    There are now three other states; Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, that have reached the required 25,000 signatures on We the People to prompt a response from the White House. I am just waiting to see how the White House will respond to any of the four petitions.
  • jacob whalen on 15 Nov 12
     
    they must think that they can do it better then the normal government. so if they think they can and if the fail they fail if not then good for them.
  • jordan bywater on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think the white house will respond with a no
  • bvasquez13 on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think there only trying to do this because there mad that Obama won , and that he will lead the state in to bigger dept.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 15 Nov 12
     
    If the proclamation says the states can't separate they would need to rewrite it and make a new set of laws, also what would happen if they fail at a new government? would they just want the US of america to take them back?
  • gharvey949 on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.
  • garrett lee on 15 Nov 12
     
    it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this
  • jessicavaldez on 15 Nov 12
     
    I don't think this is going to happen but it is still pretty scary that people are that mad at the government. I think that people always blame the government when they are not happy. If we didn't have the government we would be in more trouble than we are in now. Yes our economy is getting hard and we need more jobs. But some people are lazy and should not make the government pay for everything.
  • Melissa Christensen on 15 Nov 12
     
    I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.
  • aaron valdivia on 15 Nov 12
     
    Texas is probably just upset with the turn out of the election therefore just trying to create their own government to get what they think deserve.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    I'm not sure if the point of the article is, "Why Texas wants to Secede." I'm moreover focused as to, if it will happen, and if it is a right of the state to leave the Union. Personally, I would say it is the right of a state to decide if they want to secede. Let us look at the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The state has over 80k people who signed a petition asking for a secession. If this is the majority, our 10Th amendment would likely give the state the right to secede, as long as 50.1% of the population wished to secede. (Doubt that they actually have a majority that wishes to secede.) In English: The 10Th amendment grants the states the right to secede if the majority of its population sees fit. This is caused by the lack of detail in the constitution. The lacking detail being whether or not the states have the right to secede. (Founding father: Let's put state secession here next to gay marriage and abortion!) Anyways, as long as the majority of Texans wish to secede, I doubt there is any way that the United States could actually tell them they could not, at least not without some sort of conflict.
  • Kirstina Michl on 16 Nov 12
     
    I have to be . . . not serious here. Just a word of advice to the states who want to secede, based on what happened in the Civil War: If you secede, you won't succeed.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 16 Nov 12
     
    Payton I think the Supreme Court has already decided in Texas v White that States can't unilaterally secede from the government. They have the right to secede through revolution or by asking the other States and getting their permission. At least that's how I read the ruling. Unless there is a newer ruling on secession then Texas v. White. "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, what am I trying to state, is that states do have a right to secede, because we are not in a perpetual agreement to join the union. It was perpetual during the Articles of Confederation, the supreme court ruled that they have do not know if the constitution. "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words." English: The Articles of Confederation declared it to be a perpetual union. The Articles of Confederation no longer exist. The supreme court literally state that they are going by ground of the Articles of Confederation, a.k.a. not a valid ground to take a stance upon. Now, if we look in history. plessy v. ferguson was a supreme court case that was overturned. This case can be overturned. Also, Jeremy, your understanding is correct on most of it. But from what the case as a whole states, under the Articles of Confederation, what you states is Valid. The Court ruled this with the usage of the Articles of Confederation. (Personally, do not think you should be able to do that, and that the courts ruling is a mistake.) Finally, I am simply stating the states have a right to secede if they want to, this is because the constitution, and not the articles of confederation, is vague about the idea of secession, applying the 10th amendment, the states should have a right to secede if they have a majority of people, unless we plan to be a hypocritical society that has already forced others to use the policy in which most people want to deny.
  • Sidnie Lewis on 19 Nov 12
     
    I think this in an interesting topic. The idea of states attempting to secede from the union is mind blowing. We know our government is faulty and far from flawless... but in comparison to others, we find it to be the strongest. We defend such a government, yet there are states that want to withdraw from it! I would actually like to look into this topic a little more, so I can understand all factors in the state's decisions!
Bryan Pregon

Teachers with Guns - 31 views

www.cnn.com/...teachers.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 14
     
    AFTER viewing the story/video, which side would you take? Teachers with guns could be first responders or do more guns create more gun violence in society?
  • ...40 more comments...
  • tcomulada881 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.
  • austenclaar on 03 Dec 14
     
    In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.
  • fwyldes753 on 03 Dec 14
     
    It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.
  • lwilcoxen309 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.
  • darianhubbard on 03 Dec 14
     
    In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.
  • Erin Wolff on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.
  • Emma Leisinger on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.
  • deanaroth on 03 Dec 14
     
    I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.
  • Sydney Wilson on 03 Dec 14
     
    Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.
  • taylorcrinklaw13 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.
  • amcclain946 on 03 Dec 14
     
    After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.
  • jordan fichter on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.
  • anthonymoreno on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.
  • kaitlynflenker on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them
  • samanthaahern on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.
  • melissabenkis on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.
  • escheffler on 03 Dec 14
     
    I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.
  • austin807 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.
  • chrislindqvist on 03 Dec 14
     
    Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.
  • davyana on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.
  • Alexandria Bates on 03 Dec 14
     
    Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.
  • djones036 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.
  • bllandon on 03 Dec 14
     
    To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.
  • aharding484 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.
  • Jensyn Hanson on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.
  • daniwoolsoncroft on 03 Dec 14
     
    I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun
  • bdiaz971 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.
  • hunterhale31 on 03 Dec 14
     
    bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.
  • kquinlan591 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.
  • John Scheffler on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.
  • matuszeski on 03 Dec 14
     
    I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.
  • tonybonner on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.
  • mhart079 on 03 Dec 14
     
    In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.
  • jjohnson749 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.
  • jgroenjes on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.
  • kschwindt on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.
  • justin988 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.
  • malr2528 on 03 Dec 14
     
    After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.
  • estuckey767 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.
  • ravenmaine on 03 Dec 14
     
    I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.
  • Jaimi Shiller on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think it's a good idea. Obviously they are going to have to take a class and get a back ground check. The guns would be kept in a safe secured place away from the students. They don't have a police officer like we do so they don't have someone that is there to protect them.
  • pkleppe761 on 11 Dec 14
     
    I believe that teachers with guns has its pros and cons. For example, I believe that guns do not kill people, but the people behind them do. You can do background checks on anyone, but at any time someone with a gun can become angry and upset and shoot a person. Guns for teachers can be useful in smaller, rural areas where medical attention or police could take longer. But for teachers in urban areas should be more limited. I feel as long as they take a class to learn to shoot, to carry it, and as long as it is locked up in the classroom or only allowed to be out when needed can be very beneficial.
Bryan Pregon

Democrats Propose Phasing in $15 Minimum Wage Over Five Years - Bloomberg - 34 views

www.bloomberg.com/...-bill-ahead-of-stimulus-action

shared by Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21
     
    What is your view on increasing the minimum wage? This is a BIG topic that I'm sure has perspectives on both sides.
  • ...31 more comments...
  • bigslide on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think it's about perspective. a more privileged person can live without this change, they would be fine. But for others, going to college is not an option. Either because they don't have enough money, or they're just too busy with kids and keeping the house for them. Money should be livable. 1000$ a month is great for normal teens who just want some cash, but for people who work to live, 1000$ is not enough. People need to pay bills, hospital bills, food, water, shelter. It's not just "poor people", it everyone who is struggling, which is a lot more than you think.
  • wnichols1416 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I feel like its normal all its going to do is up the price to everything making no change besides the price to things
  • alanmartinez01 on 27 Jan 21
     
    This can have many outcomes but personally, I think it will cause inflation and nothing will change other than the price of items
  • masonmascarenas on 27 Jan 21
     
    The idea of raising the minimum wage is a good idea however 15 dollars an hour is a good amount of money which is more likely to raise the cost of living bringing us back to square one.
  • rileegood on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think the minimum wage should be raised. The minimum wage in many other countries makes so much more sense, as people can actually live off them. With how low ours is, people are struggling immensely.
  • qanderson136 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I do not think raising the minimum wage is the right move because there are very many small businesses that will not be able to survive also, I believe that this will cause major inflation, making everything more expensive, so overall raising the minimum wage wouldn't be making things any better.
  • thepriceisright on 27 Jan 21
     
    Inflation is making the prices of houses go up anyway regardless of the minimum wage, so we need to make the minimum wage compatible with modern prices. I don't know if I believe it should be 15$ but it should be more than it is now.
  • owenjacobs on 27 Jan 21
     
    i don't think that raising the minimum wage to $15 is necessary, with the way the wage is set up now it give people an incentive to move up in life for a better job better pay. You may work at burger king for $9 an hour, that's not a lot so you want to do better and get a better job that pays 15 an hour but if you start out at 15 there is not really any incentive to move up in life when you can do better and achieve higher for your self and your family
  • vperez191 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think it is a good idea to raise the minimum wage because it is pretty low but we should not raise it that much because It could be hard for the smaller businesses
  • thomaschau on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage would only cause a business to increase their prices on products to make up the amount of money they're paying employees so we would just have another problem to deal with.
  • arosas733 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think that raising the minimum wage could be good but also bad. I personally think $15 would be too high and somewhere around $9-$11 would be a better option as it is a little low right now. Would raise costs of living but not by too much, and raising the minimum wage already could increase tax revenue. But from the article, it says they aim to increase to $9.25 then $15 by 2025, but I still believe by then it still is a pretty high number and prices of things will increase by a lot.
  • hschimmer540 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage will only cost businesses to suffer especially small businesses because they aren't making a lot, to begin with, and businesses will have to raise their prices to make back the money they are losing.
  • hschimmer540 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I agree with both Thomas and Amirah we all had the same points and seem to have pretty much the same point of view on the subject.
  • joeypo10 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I feel like if we raise the minimum wage people that worked for the pay they deserved will feel like they did all that for nothing and eventually all the workers will lose their work ethic and we will have worse products. On the other hand people that are already doing subpar work will be getting decent pay for terrible work. This just means there getting rewarded for doing a bad job. Just makes no sense.
  • allisonwalker on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think that raising the minimum wage can be beneficial; for those who are working long days and not making enough to live without help from the government. If we raise the minimum wage, then those who are suffering will able to live a little better.
  • jacobknauss on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage would just have a negative effect on smaller businesses and the economy in general. It would be pointless raising the minimum wage because of inflation. Some of you guys are saying the cost of living is currently too high so raising the wage would be a good thing for them. What some of y'all don't understand is that raising the minimum wage will also raise the cost of living.
  • noahsandbothe on 27 Jan 21
     
    Raising the minimum wage is a good idea. As the article says it would be over 5 years and there are many cities that have a $15 minimum wage and inflation isn't jacking up prices to an unbearable extent. No matter if the minimum wage was increased inflation will continue to rise and that will just put minimum wage workers in a worse situation with the same amount of money for more expensive food, water, clothes, etc.
  • akrimmel345 on 27 Jan 21
     
    It seems better because you have the chance to make more money, but in my opinion all this does is inflate everything else over time.
  • qanderson136 on 28 Jan 21
     
    Raising the minimum wage will cause all businesses who have people working for under $15 an hour to raise their prices on their goods, this would make pretty much everything you buy more expensive like groceries, gas, and everyday necessities more expensive. Also across the US the minimum wage changes so for example Denver CO which is an expensive city to live in already had their minimum wage set at $14.77. There are also small rural towns in Iowa which are cheap to live in so there is no need to have a $15 minimum wage there.
  • brandonwch on 01 Feb 21
     
    It's not just important for the minimum wage to rise, it's a necessity. In fact, 15$ isn't enough! It's what was asked for years ago, and inflation has changed since then. Our minimum wage has, in fact, fallen over the years due to inflation. Prices won't raise by any significant margin. According to business insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mcdonalds-pays-20-hourly-wages-2014-10), we could double the wages of employees, and give them benifits, and the prices of goods would be barely changed. Inflation will increase with or without an increase in the minimum wage, because it has increased in the past few years without one. An increase in the minimum wage would help people buy more. Finally, the idea that prices *have* to go up is bull. Nothing *has* to happen. McDonalds doesn't *have* to raise prices if wages were increased, because they would still make a massive profit, just not as absurd of one as they make now.
  • saraivargas on 01 Feb 21
     
    I believe if they raise the minimum wage they would need to increase every job as well,for example if you make above $15 and hour you would need to raise your wage as well. This would need to be done over the course of years however. We can't raise it all in such a small amount of time.
  • qanderson136 on 01 Feb 21
     
    Brandon, according to your source, McDonald's "has warned that wage increases would force franchisees to raise menu prices." Also, I have read your article and have failed to find the spot where it says that after wages have been doubled and employees have been given extra benefits that prices of goods wouldn't change. It was comparing Denmark to the US when Denmark was one of the most expensive places to live in the world so it would also not be fair or accurate to compare them.
  • zeaksorensen on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think this will affect different groups differently. with people who never had money problem's not really being affected by this, and those who have will be greatly affected because of the change in income.
  • gbrochu915 on 01 Feb 21
     
    What I think is that it is good and I think it is bad in a way because if we raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour we would most likely have to raise the good paying jobs as well, and I want to think it is good because for the people who do only make minimum wage right now they would be able to afford more and be able to live better and not have to worry as much but then again, I think that would raise the prices to live and its would just be a big loop coming back to this.
  • matts999 on 01 Feb 21
     
    We should increase minimum wave because those who have money problems or are in debt will be ebal to get back on their feet quicker and with less help.
  • gavync_alhs on 01 Feb 21
     
    It would seem useless to a lot of people, but I kinda see it as an opportunity for teens who are saving money for the future. With that additional money, a teen can save much more than they usually do. The minimum wage might not help people who are struggling to get by, but for teens, it would be a nice boost.
  • jdogan on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea because as of right now the minimum wage isn't a livable wage. The cost of living along with inflation has been rising consistently but the minimum wage hasn't changed in a very long time. So as of now, even the richest companies have no incentive to raise wages. Forcing them to raise their wages is really the only solution to cut into the massive wealth difference between the upperclass and the lower middle class.
  • haileejoy on 03 Feb 21
     
    i think we should raise minimum wage because even now its a lot more common for teens to be left on their own to buy things they need. some teens have more responsibilities than others and the current minimum wage does next to nothing in terms of help. i know tons of people in the same situation as me where they are struggling to buy things for their children while paying other bills because the highest paying job theyre able to get is still only $11 an hour. i just think minimum wage needs to be changed to reflect current situations in america.
  • mynameisjeff1 on 08 Feb 21
     
    The minimum wage isn't enough to live on right now, and with inflation being an economic factor the price of living with follow the phasing in of a $15 minimum wage. We don't need to keep on raising the minimum wage, but instead work on lowering the cost of living.
  • cadenoles on 08 Feb 21
     
    I think we should definitely raise the minimum wage. If we raise it students can put more into savings and prepare themselves for the world. If a student makes 15 dollars an hour, works 18 hours a week, and puts half of it away for 2 years they will have $12,312 dollars after taxes. This can cover everything a graduate needs to keep on their feet for a good half-year.
  • bklopp601 on 08 Feb 21
     
    I think we should raise the minimum raise to $15 dollars because $7 dollars isn't enough to help others that have a big family in their house.
  • tsilva588 on 08 Feb 21
     
    Personally, I believe we should not raise the minimum wage because there's a reason it's minimum wage because they're minimum jobs. A slight rise in the adult minimum wage would be fine due to them needing to support what they have but the youth wage can stay the same.
  • jtaulborg103 on 08 Feb 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea. People can't live off of $7.00 to provide for their families. Some people don't have a better education or aren't a good fit for a higher paying job and $7.00 isn't enough.
Janeth Cano

Why be against same sex marriage? - 37 views

front.moveon.org

politics protest

shared by Janeth Cano on 05 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Janeth Cano on 05 Dec 11
     
    A student from ISU stands up for same sex marriage as he tells his story. Very powerful!
  • ...30 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • awest520 on 05 Dec 11
     
    "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?
  • Katelynn Hunter on 06 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • anonymous on 06 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Bryan Pregon on 06 Dec 11
     
    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
  • Brice Johnson on 07 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • robert jungferman on 07 Dec 11
     
    casue it sthe same sex it shold not be
  • broxton anderson on 07 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Tuan Chau on 07 Dec 11
     
    I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..
  • broxton anderson on 07 Dec 11
     
    they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.
  • Dakota Classon on 07 Dec 11
     
    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?
  • Sierra Risner on 07 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Alexis Daniels on 07 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Derek Large on 07 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • awest520 on 08 Dec 11
     
    "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?
  • Jay Cook on 09 Dec 11
     
    From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk
  • broxton anderson on 12 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Katelynn Hunter on 20 Dec 11
     
    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
  • xhotxsoccerbabe on 09 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • xhotxsoccerbabe on 09 Mar 12
     
    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?
  • Brittany Bourlier on 09 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • Captain Crunk on 15 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • kevindickey on 16 Mar 12
     
    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...
  • Sean Barrett on 16 Mar 12
     
    Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.
  • kevindickey on 16 Mar 12
     
    If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....
  • Brittany Bourlier on 16 Mar 12
     
    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?
  • Jake Radford on 16 Mar 12
     
    I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.
  • Riley Barton on 16 Mar 12
     
    I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights
  • katilyn olinde on 20 Mar 12
     
    i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights
  • kevindickey on 20 Mar 12
     
    Thinning the gene pool is a bad thing. Genes that don't get passed are lost, and it could have devastating effects. Also I never said they don't contribute through adopting. I said that in the eyes of evolution ANYONE who fails to pass on genes is nonexistent.
  • Riley Barton on 20 Mar 12
     
    I believe Brittany said the human population, not pointing out simply the gene pool. The human population rate needs to slow down. It's increasing at a ridiculous rate and with adoptions instead of births it will decrease slightly. However, more people need to understand that everyone has a right as an individual and if a man-man or woman-woman couple wants to get married or adopt children or have their own, I say let them.
mcaamal

Second Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Has Stronger Side Effects - 22 views

www.healthline.com/...ely-have-stronger-side-effects

shared by mcaamal on 22 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • jackiegonzalez on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, all of us should consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • kredding147 on 22 Mar 21
     
    The second dose really does have stronger side effects. My mom got her vaccine because she works with law enforcement and she was sick for a few days after she got hers and she said when she woke up the morning after her shot that it felt like someone hit her in the arm with a baseball bat.
  • hannahliwai on 22 Mar 21
     
    yes, the second dose does have side effects, but the same thing happens with the flu vaccine. the only difference is that this vaccine doesn't actually inject you with the virus. it just sends antibodies to teach your body to fight it.
  • rosellyrosas on 23 Mar 21
     
    This article talks more in-depth about what coronavirus vaccines do to your body. For example, it talks about how the first vaccine teaches your body how to react to the virus. With the second vaccine, you will more than likely be getting more side effects. According to the article, no matter how many side effects people will get, the vaccine will still be working in your body. What are your guy's thoughts about the vaccine?
  • carsonschaa on 23 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, we should all consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • milo_nordman on 25 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though it has stronger side effects people should still consider getting the vaccine. The stronger side effects may be rough, but I'm sure getting Covid is worse.
  • sydneykolln on 26 Mar 21
     
    The article discusses how the second Covid shot will most likely hit harder than the first. It talks about how that's actually a good thing because these common symptoms are typically signs that the vaccine is working. While I have had friends that have suffered from the second shot, I would still get the shot because it's better than getting Covid.
  • masonmascarenas on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that because the side effects are stronger we should allow the vaccine more time for development, but we should still consider getting it.
  • carsonschaa on 29 Mar 21
     
    Even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, I think all of us should consider taking it at this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • gbrochu915 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that even with the second shot having more side effects we should still get it because it is our only option at this point but I do also think that there needed to be more time for the vaccine to develop and for us to know if it could really effect us in the future.
  • bflores247 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I completely trust the Maderna vaccine as my dad was part of the trial for it and he had no problems with it (he didn't have the placebo, he had the actual vaccine), and that's good enough for me, if he was fine, ill most likely be fine.
  • abbidominguez on 13 Apr 21
     
    I think although the second dose has stronger side effects it shouldn't stop you from not getting the vaccine at all. I think the vaccine is our only chance of getting rid of COVID and it will only work if the majority of Americans get it. At the end of the day, I think the side effects of the vaccine can't be as bad as the long-lasting effects COVID can have on you.
  • vperez191 on 13 Apr 21
     
    The COVID shot reminds me of the flu shot because when you get the flu shot it is normal to get sick afterwards or have pain but it will prevent you later from getting the flu. Even though the covid shot has side effects it is still good to get it because it will prevent you from getting COVID
  • ericschmidtberge on 14 Apr 21
     
    Even though the second dose has strong side effects I think that it's vital that everyone gets vaccinated if we ever want to return to normal life. I got my first dose last week and besides a sore arm and being a little thirsty I was fine. It affects people in different ways so I could get no side effects when I get my second dose or I could get a ton of negative ones. It's only for 48 hours according to the article and I´m willing to endure the risk of being sick if it means making the world hopefully safe and normal again.
  • arosas733 on 14 Apr 21
     
    I think its really your choice. I personally believe I do not need to be getting a newly made vaccine that no one knows the possible future effects from it. If I get Covid I get it and I feel it's more important for older people to get the vaccine if they like, you do you. But as well as the J & J vaccine, I feel it is unneeded things being put into your body where there has already been multiple of horrible results from people getting the vaccine. You won't be seeing me vaccinated.
  • lhunter952 on 19 Apr 21
     
    Personally, I would not get the vaccine because nobody knows what it is going to do to you later. If there are no long-term effects and it truly does protect you from the virus then I completely understand why you would get it. The thing is, no one 100% knows so I would be very hesitant to get it.
  • nick_rice on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think you should get the vaccine but you should not be forced to get it. If someone is worried that the vaccine is not safe then they should not have to get it if they do not want it.
  • kredding147 on 19 Apr 21
     
    Even though it has stronger effects I still think everyone should consider getting vaccinated. Of course, there should be no forcing anyone to get vaccinated, it's just important that everyone weighs their options. I was really really sick with Covid earlier this year and it was awful. If I can do my part to protect myself and everyone else I'm going to do it.
  • allisonwalker on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that it's a good thing since as the article said, it means it's working. If there is a chance for people to be able to not get the harsh effects of COVID-19 then maybe they should get the shot so they can be prepared for it. Idk.
  • saraivargas on 19 Apr 21
     
    It's still in the works so of course it's going to have different/stronger effects.
  • bklopp601 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I believe that we all should take the second dose because it will help with Covid and in fact it's definitely stronger than the first one.
  • eballenger on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that people should be able to decide if they want the second dose or not, but I hope they do.
  • jtaulborg103 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think more Americans should get the vaccine despite the side effects the vaccine has on them. It's our best chance of not catching or spreading the virus meaning that we can return to our normal lives. A couple of days of the side effects the vaccine has on them outweighs the long-term effects of not getting the vaccine including the fact that if you get COVID, there's a possibility your symptoms from the virus will last even after you're free of spreading the virus.
  • kinziekat02 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I agree with everyone's comments, even though the second dose has worse effects i think people should try to get it because other wise we'll never "go back to normal"
  • redrose99875 on 20 Apr 21
     
    I think we should stick to the vaccine that we KNOW works best
  • peytongrenoble on 18 May 21
     
    I think that since it is common for everyone to have these worse effects, it is going to be known as not affecting certain people. If the effects are only covid symptoms that aren't super deadly, then I think it should be okay? I think that the people who are getting it are being vulnerable and helpful for those who are nervous and reluctant to get the vaccine.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    Side effects of a vaccine are totally normal, it's like when you get the flu vaccine some people do get sick. Either way, it's your best hope is not getting covid. What else are you gonna do besides harm others more prone to the disease?
Bryan Pregon

Acquitted again by Senate, Trump still a powerful force in Republican politics | Reuters - 31 views

www.reuters.com/...ublican-politics-idUSKBN2AE04T

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 21
     
    There are MANY issues to discuss in this article. Now that the Impeachment trial is finished, I am interested to see what your thoughts on this process are and if you have any predictions of the future of politics for Donald Trump and the Republican party!
  • ...20 more comments...
  • laceyperry067 on 16 Feb 21
     
    Because of all of the people who are in the Republican party, and very strong with their beliefs in this party, I feel that future elections are going to have more Republican votes and we will have the same thing happen with what happened with Donald Trump. I feel that Trump will make some sort of comeback with his belief that the election was rigged with the fact he did not "win" and will make another appearance in politics or any other form of big media.
  • brandonwch on 16 Feb 21
     
    The Republican Party is a joke. Over the past four years, it has turned into the party of Trump and little else. I fully expect, nothing else considered, that he will run for president again in 2024. Unfortunately, politics aren't much better on in the Democratic party. Due to the influx of "Never Trump" Republicans being welcomed with open arms into the Democratic Party, they've been shoved further to the right than ever before. America lacks an opposition on anything but optics. I expect American politics to take a hard right-wing turn in the next few years, or at minimum America's swing to the right will continue in full-force.
  • masonmascarenas on 16 Feb 21
     
    I fully expect Trump to run again for president in 2024 as well as an exponential amount more in votes towards the republican party.
  • gbrochu915 on 16 Feb 21
     
    I will expect Trump to run again in 2024 if or after the people see that voting him out of office goes and if they like this better then i dont think he will.
  • zeaksorensen on 16 Feb 21
     
    I expect that Trump will more then likely end up running for president again. You can see that the people currently in power don't want that because of how hard they are trying to impeach him so he can't run again.
  • ericschmidtberge on 16 Feb 21
     
    I think that the amount of power he has over the republican party is insane. It makes sense that a lot of Republicans would vote for him but because the ones that went against him received immediate backlash it makes me wonder if truly people voted for what they truly wanted or ensure that they still had a positive image.
  • owenjacobs on 16 Feb 21
     
    i think trump is smart enough to know that he does not have a chance of winning in 2024. I also disagree with Brandon, saying the republican party is a joke could make a few people mad, that would be like saying the democratic party is full of snow flakes. these are people beliefs while we may have different ones we still need to respect one another. Respect is key in this world its time we start showing some.
  • abbidominguez on 16 Feb 21
     
    I think Trump did a lot of monumental things throughout his presidency (not all for good reasons). Although I wouldn't doubt him to run again for president in the future I think he knows he wouldn't win. I think he has caused problems that will last for years to come. Trump holds a lot of power within the Republican party and has always made sure it's been known. I think people are genuinely scared of him due to the power he holds. I don't want someone running my country that is feared by its people.
  • jackiegonzalez on 16 Feb 21
     
    I agree with everyone who says that Trump will likely try to run again at some point. When he left office, he even said something about how he would try to be in politics later again. He still has a lot of supporters who will try to get him into office. However, if he didn't win this election, especially against Biden, I don't think he'll win another. In 2024, most Gen Zs will be able to vote, and based on what I've seen on social media, a lot of young people are not agreeing with Trump. Therefore, I doubt he would win popular vote and- most likely- he won't win electoral vote either.
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 21
     
    Great to read comments so far... does anyone want to give thoughts on whether you think the Republican party leaders will embrace the Trump voter-base to avoid having him run as a third party in 2024 (which could split the support they need to defeat Democrats)
  • jdogan on 16 Feb 21
     
    I think the Republican Party will be forced to embrace the Trump voter-base. If Trump was to create his own party, I think there's a very real possibility it could become more popular than the republican party. As the article stated, 70% of Republicans believed that Trump being acquitted was the right decision which is a very large majority. This alone shows that he still has a lot of his influence in the party, but his run as a republican president was marked by him tailoring the party to fit around him and not necessarily the actual ideals of the Republican party. The amount of people he got to to the capitol off of just one rally illustrates their attachment to him rather than the party. So if Trump was to detach himself from the party then since his voter-base is attached to him rather than the party they would very likely come with him and undoubtedly take an irreparable number of voters from the republican party, but in worst-case scenario takes a majority leaving Trump on top of the Republican party.
  • joeypo10 on 16 Feb 21
     
    I disagree with what Jackie said about how Trump won't have a chance against Biden in the next election because in the past president Stephan Grover Cleveland served two term that were not consecutive. So it is possible it's probably just more difficult.
  • allisonwalker on 16 Feb 21
     
    I think that Trump is going to run again maybe in the next election, saying he'd be in politics again in the future. He just made a mess of everything, if he does run again, I doubt he'd become president since this election showed there were more people against him rather than with him. This whole impeachment thing is just whack.
  • peytongrenoble on 16 Feb 21
     
    I don't completely understand the Freedom of Speech compared to the Inciting of a Riot. I think that what he said invited the people to the capital and was inciting it, but if you compare that to having the freedom of speech, then why can he say this and not get in trouble. Anyways, even if he hadn't completely incited the riot, he was continuously tweeting about how the "patriots" were doing nothing wrong... okay... His video which he had released was considerably compared to someone speaking to children reminding them that he "loved" them and to be safe. He was trying to "cover" it up by putting out the video by making it seem as if there were no consequences to their actions and to just leave as if what they weren't doing was illegal. I think that if the voters were able to vote anonymously, that the outcome would have definitely turned out much different.
  • haileejoy on 16 Feb 21
     
    i agree with the people saying trump will try to run again but i think his chances of winning are very low despite the fact that he still has tons of supporters. i think the only way trump would win is if Biden really messed things up in these next four years.
  • vperez191 on 16 Feb 21
     
    I would not be shocked if Trump runs again but it might be a little harder for him. We will see how Biden does for the next four years. If he does goof things I'm guessing more people will like him more.
  • arosas733 on 16 Feb 21
     
    I agree with the people saying that Trump will run for president again in 2024. He may have a lot of people that hate him, especially people of power that influence the majority of people, but he has many supporters as well. This makes his chances of winning lower. But also, I think that by that time more people may choose him after Biden being president because already, people regret voting for him after new revelations.
  • ndvorak on 17 Feb 21
     
    The reason Donald Trump has so much power and influence over the Republican party is that to republicans he was the last "hope" with the Bush's not being eligible and with no predecessors, Trump was easily able to take the spot of the GOP frontrunner in the 2016 election and with a very split four years that brought the country to more diverse levels(falls on both party lines) Trump's impact was easily picked up by republicans, look at MO Sen. Hawley who was one of the congressional leaders on Jan. 6th who voted to overturn the election results and the impeachment trial just recently. No matter if Trump runs we know he will stay in the political light and his influence will be heavily given to republicans in congress and the GOP front runner for 2024 wont be to far from Trumps ideology.
  • lamador794 on 18 Feb 21
     
    I also agree with the ones saying that Trump has extreme power over the Republican party. We all know he said he was going to try again to get back on the reelection path. He might be very supported by his own party but it doesn't mean that others will
  • milo_nordman on 18 Feb 21
     
    I agree that Trump will run for president in 2024. But even though he has power over the Republican party, I think it'll be harder for him to win. After the whole situation with the capital building, I think some of his supporters have been rethinking their support of him.
  • nick_rice on 19 Feb 21
     
    I agree that Trump will run for president when he gets the chance again but it is hard to say if he will even be president again after what he did with the capital.
  • wnichols1416 on 22 Feb 21
     
    Trump said he will be running for president in 2024. I believe it's going to be hard for him to win After the capital situation because it showed he's not accountable for his actions
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

www.wowt.com/...e-Death-Penalty-182678981.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • joecarbis on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  • Natalie Wilson on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • caseyyard on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  • garrett lee on 10 Dec 12
     
    i think we should have the death penalty
  • gharvey949 on 10 Dec 12
     
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  • Ryan Loye on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 10 Dec 12
     
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  • Molly Wyant on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  • blakewilladsen on 10 Dec 12
     
    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
  • jessicavaldez on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Christensen on 10 Dec 12
     
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  • aaron valdivia on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Dec 12
     
    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
  • joecarbis on 11 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  • Dylan Garner on 11 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • bvasquez13 on 11 Dec 12
     
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  • gharvey949 on 11 Dec 12
     
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  • aaron valdivia on 11 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • blakewilladsen on 11 Dec 12
     
    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
  • jacob whalen on 12 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • joecarbis on 13 Dec 12
     
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  • Dylan Garner on 13 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • dalton burk on 13 Dec 12
     
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Dec 12
     
    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."
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    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
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    I am prison
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Dec 12
     
    @ 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?
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Dylan Garner on 18 Dec 12
     
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  • Emili Davis on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  • joecarbis on 19 Dec 12
     
    @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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  • Molly Wyant on 19 Dec 12
     
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
Bryan Pregon

Political Cartoon: Middle Class - 60 views

media.caglecartoons.com/...102536_600.jpg

government politics economy cartoon

shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Dec 11
     
    President Obama said yesterday that the United States faces "a make or break moment" for a middle class that is shrinking because of "gaping" income inequality. In the comments, please give your thoughts on what this cartoon is implying and if you agree/disagree.
  • ...31 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Dec 11
     
    For more information on Obama's speech you can check USA Today http://goo.gl/oTNj9 If you look at this page, you may want to check out the "Presidential Approval Tracker" ... seems like a pattern to me.
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    obama is a good man, and is trying to be a hero for the middle and lower class. If it wasnt for the republicans blocking every move democrats try to make and making our nation more inefficient than a classroom filled with apes, maybe by now our economy would actually be fixed, but no people cant come together for more than a week for the good of a whole country.
  • anonymous on 08 Dec 11
     
    The cartoon seems to imply that the "middle class" people have more to lose than they could gain/ can hold on to. While the wealthy are continuing to prosper significantly.
  • jordan peterson on 08 Dec 11
     
    I believe this gap is closing and most likely will work because theres enough people that want to close the "gap" and there will nolonger be a huge money gap anymore
  • Henry Black on 08 Dec 11
     
    The "fuzzy math" section of the article is interesting because the statistics happen to be true. However, incorporating more ideals aligned with Socialistic ideology may not be the worst thing that could happen to this country.
  • Lauren Rommel on 08 Dec 11
     
    I believe that if we try to fix the "gap" in our country, the "gap" will increasingly become farther apart...
  • Anna Gahm on 08 Dec 11
     
    "The richer are get richer" I believe that taxing the people who get higher income wont solve anything, I think that everyone should be equal. If the government starts taxing the wealthy then many middle class wont try as hard to get a higher income because of the higher taxes they will have to pay.
  • coleman miller on 08 Dec 11
     
    I think the middle class are more likely to break than make.
  • Daniel Pengra on 08 Dec 11
     
    When has any of Obama's plans actually worked? I think the middle class is in big trouble.
  • Megan Cheney on 08 Dec 11
     
    If we try to fix the "gap" of our country then the "gap" will continue to grow, if everyone came together for everything we would live in a perfect world, it wouldn't be fair if we had higher taxes for the rich, because some of them have worked hard for their money and it's not fair to tax them because of that.
  • William Connelly on 08 Dec 11
     
    I also feel that the rich should be paying higher taxes, and the poor should get a little bit lower taxes
  • Sarah Trant on 08 Dec 11
     
    I strongly disagree with Obama that the wealthy should get taxed more. What happened to "fair, open and honest?" It's not fair to those who succeed in life to have to pay more taxes for someone who failed or dropped out of high school.
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    the tax situation is a good point but instead of paying said amount we should pay a certain percentage of our wage. so everyone no matter how much they make will put forth the same "share" of their wage and everyone will be happy. i mean seriously, does that multi-millionare really need any more money? heck ill be happy with just one million.
  • christian knight on 08 Dec 11
     
    I disagree with obama i feel everyone should be taxed the same why should the wealthy be punished for how succesful they are
  • anonymous on 08 Dec 11
     
    I think that Obama is trying his best to help out his country, but he needs to make more effective decisions.
  • Janeth Cano on 08 Dec 11
     
    I agree with broxton, if taxes were based on a percentage of the income of a person, it would be fare and easy, no one could complain because you're only paying according to what you earn and not according to what is expected.
  • Hannah Browning on 08 Dec 11
     
    I think the cartoons implying that Obama uses the middle-class and everything he's "going" to do for them as a bridge to stay president and win America over, when in fact he's making matters worse for the group he is supposedly "helping".
  • maranda orth on 08 Dec 11
     
    if you in the middle class lower class or higher class you have to pay you taxes and we should all be taxed equaly
  • Jay Cook on 08 Dec 11
     
    I think that he is trying but he should make some diff. decision.
  • zach parker on 08 Dec 11
     
    i have to agree with broxton it makes sence to have a precent of ur wages be taken out. so some one working a part time job is paying a little bit and a person like warren buffet is paying alot abit but the wealthy well always find a way to wigil there way out of paying. always hav always will.
  • Sierra Risner on 08 Dec 11
     
    I agree with Brock. I think there should be a percentage coming out of our income because it wouldn't be fair if we tax the rich more and the poor less just because they are more successful. Most people were raised differently and they have had more (or less) connections to get them to where they are now. It doesn't seem fair at all.
  • Justice Fisher on 08 Dec 11
     
    I agree with what is being said on most of these comments.I do not believe the rich should have to pay higher taxes because they worked hard to get were they are now and just because we have a gap in our income does not mean that they have to pay for it.
  • Ziada Karbowski on 08 Dec 11
     
    Our middle class is beginning to diminish because we are either rich or we are poor. In the role of gender, men have more opportunities to have more pay. Taxes are different based on pay, the more you make the more they take.
  • alexisprazak on 08 Dec 11
     
    A flat tax percentage may seem to favor the wealthy, but it's the only fair way to do things. Everyone is supposed to be equal in this country.
  • theresa schwenk on 08 Dec 11
     
    I agree with Ziada. We are getting to the point were it's either the poor or the rich. The middle-class is starting to disappear.
  • Derek Large on 08 Dec 11
     
    The middle class is all but gone. We don't even see them any different than that of the lower class. we are rich or we are poor, never in the middle.everyone thinks that the other makes to much or not enough
  • Samantha Pike on 08 Dec 11
     
    I feel like Obama just talks about the stuff that people want to hear, yet he does nothing actually about the problems. Who cares if you can talk for almost an hour about a situation but don't do anything about it. Like many people said I don't believe people who are more successful should suffer to pay more taxes than people who do not have as much money because they did not prosper as much as someone who does work harder.
  • shay chandler on 08 Dec 11
     
    I Also agree with ziada ,This is getting out of hand , what will happen if we break ? were do us, our society in the middle class go ?
  • awest520 on 08 Dec 11
     
    "A flat tax percentage may seem to favor the wealthy, but it's the only fair way to do things. Everyone is supposed to be equal in this country." I don"t think so, After all can you really say it's fair for someone with more means then responsibilities to pay a much lower overall percentage then someone with more responsibilities then means? I think that there is no way to make this kind of thing 100% fair but it is fairer to look at this kind of thing as percentages then as flat numbers.
  • casandra morales on 08 Dec 11
     
    The rich shouldnt have to pay more because of their success they took their opportunities and made the best of them. of course many might have had the same opportunities but just didnt take them. or some simply didnt have the opportunity at all. the middle class will have a few struggles here and there, but in the end i think everything will be alright.maybe.i hope.
  • ladasia on 10 Sep 13
     
    This seems like a moment in American history where choices have to be made that everyone may not agree on. People are forced to use their money on others even if they don't want to. I hate the idea of being forced to use my money, but, the idea that people would rather the poor die and move out of the way is worse. No matter what, the choices are really difficult and can harm more than help. In the future we'll all look back on the results and hope they were for the better.
  • Victoria Kirk on 13 Sep 13
     
    Rising taxes for the rich in unjust and rising taxes for everyone is just dumb. They spend our tax money on useless things like art work instead of helping the very thing that keeps this country going... The people.
  • Zach Standard on 16 Sep 13
     
    I don't think that taxing the wealthy will really solve anything. The money won't go to the middle class, it will be tax money. Which goes to the state, which gets spent on different items. Tax money isn't just transferred to the pockets of the people of the lower and middle class.
Bryan Pregon

Primary election 2016: What to watch on March 15 - CNNPolitics.com - 39 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16
     
    "Voters go to the polls in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio on Tuesday. Here's what to watch in those contests:"
  • ...30 more comments...
  • ltorneten065 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I bet Sanders wins a few Midwest States. Momentum is definitely on his side after he took Michigan over Hillary. Also I feel that both Rubio and Kasich will both be knocked out of the race. I feel that Donald Trump will keep winning. I bet Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be the ones campaigning for president in the end.
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that if Rubio does not win Florida today, he will drop out and support Ted Cruz. Clinton will win Florida, but Sanders will take the other states.
  • egessert on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Sanders will close the gap in between him and Clinton. I also think like Donald Trump will win most of the votes in the other states.
  • nickwarneke on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that ted Cruz will win Florida, and will win slightly over trump in the other states, Clinton will lose Florida and will lose the other states to sanders.
  • kadenroen on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that sander will have the advantage in the Midwest, and Hillary and Trump will have advantages in other states. Also I think Trump and Clinton will be the last ones for election.
  • tyjeff22 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict the Trump will win and face off against Hillary
  • selena99 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think Donald Trump will beat Rubio and ted Cruz, if Rubio does not win the votes over in Florida. If sanders cannot make a come back and get the super delegates to vote for him then Hillary will win the race and go against Trump.
  • kfloerchinger on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think as of right now Trump will win for the Republicans even though Cruz is close behind, more people are still predicted to vote for Trump today. Even if Kasich thinks he can win some delegates this week he still won't gain enough to compete and will end up dropping out. When it comes to Hillary vs Sanders I think it will be a close race, I predict HIllary will win Florida because she's had a pattern of winning the southern states, but Sanders has a better chance of winning the other states left.
  • calebsnead on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Hillary and Sanders will split, but Hillary will stay ahead because of her lead. I also think that Trump will add onto his lead and be campaigning in the end.
  • ivanhessche on 15 Mar 16
     
    i predict that if rubio does not win in Florida trump would have a easier win when the time comes. If sander can get a jump on Clinton in the other state will give him more ammunition when the voting comes.
  • gage barton on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that if trump wins Florida he will have a smooth road ahead and leave the other candidates behind. I think if sanders doesn't get enough votes to sway the super delegates Clinton will go on and face trump.
  • bwest01 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that, nearing the middle of the race, it has begun to be more focused on stopping the "big-wig's" Trump and Hillary. Bernie Sanders' momentum in the race is picking up and if he wins Florida and Ohio it very well could end up in his favor. Also at this time I agree with Mr. Pregon's above comment, if Rubio does not win his home state he may drop out and push his fellow runner, Cruz, forward. The same goes for Kasich in Ohio.
  • zander0823 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Rubio will win Florida and it will put him closer in the race but he will still not be able to make a big enough jump to get in the head to head race.
  • elijah57 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think Rubio will win Florida, Kasich will lose in Ohio and support Cruz. Clinton will win Florida but Sanders will win everywhere else.
  • kcaskey940 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict Rubio will win Florida putting him closer to Cruz but not enough to give him the win.
  • christianthecub on 15 Mar 16
     
    Trump will likely sweep the board, or come very close to it. His numbers will more than likely convince other republican candidates to drop out and support either himself or Cruz. For the rest of the country its rather concerning deeming Trump has been instigating and promoting American Citizens inner Nazi as of late. On the democratic side of things, Hillary will likely win Florida, but given the financial situation of most of the other states, I am strongly convinced Bernie will win most of them.
  • kyleighsev on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that when they get farther west that Bernie will be able to catch up to Hillary and there;s a good change because the article even said that she was starting to get nervous about the debate.
  • morgandooty on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Trump will win the majority on the Republican side. I think he will be way ahead of Cruz by the end of the day. Rubio might stay a little longer, even though he will not win Florida. Kasich will probably drop out today, and he will support Trump. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will be pretty close. I think Clinton will win slightly more delegates than Sanders.
  • abbygroepper on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think the gap will close between Bernie and Hilary. Donald Trump will probably win the republican side
  • mjones776 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Bernie Sanders may just win Florida and he could just pass up Hillary. I think if Rubio ends up not being able to even win his own state, then he may just drop out and support.
  • cmorgal on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Trump will win his side and face off against Sanders.
  • bclayton731 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict sanders will win Florida and upset Clinton like he did in Michigan. He should also be able to win all the other states except for North Carolina which favors Clinton more. If Rubio and Kasich do not win there rich delegate home states they will more then likely drop out of the race. I also believe Ted Cruz can get ahead of Donald Trump today in the race for president.
  • tannerrocha426 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that trump will win the republican nominee. Cruz has no chance in beating him. Either Rubio. FOr the democratic side Bernie has no chance. He will not beat a Clinton. She has already had her marks in politics weather bad or good. For president its said to say but Hillary will become the next president Of The United States.
  • alyssaserrano on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Trump will win for the republicans and end up being one of the candidates in the end, and if Sanders doesn't win the Midwest and get some of the super delegates Clinton will be up against Trump.
  • wamichael on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Sander's momentum will be able to make him tie with or be ahead of Clinton just barely. And judging by the super delegates being in the hands of Clinton at this moment, when Sanders gets his momentum and is able to at least tie with Clinton by the time the convention comes it will take Sanders his all to get the super delegates to favor him more than Clinton.
  • mariosaldana on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that the last two candidates from both the democrats side and republicans side will be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
  • kyleboldt on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Trump will win on the republican side beating Cruz closely. I think Clinton will win on the other side barely beating Sander while she takes the most votes.
  • msap832 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that trump stays in the lead for the republican side. Kasich drops out. And for the Democratic side Hillary keeps the lead but not by much as Sanders slowly is closing the gap between him and Hillary.
  • epond857 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that cruz isnt going to get his home town and Kasich will get his home town and when cruz doesnt get his home town he will drop out and support donald trump. And the last 2 in the finals will be hillary clinton and donald trump
  • epond857 on 16 Mar 16
     
    I was somwhat right he cruz didnt get his home town and he droped out but I dont know if hes going to support trump or not?
  • ltorneten065 on 17 Mar 16
     
    I feel that Donald Trump and Hillary will be the winners of their respective parties. I feel that Cruz will drop out of the race and support Trump for the rest of the campaign.
  • kgod152 on 21 Mar 16
     
    Sanders will probably win a few in the midwest but I think Hillary will stay in front, trump as well. Cruz might drop out.
Bryan Pregon

Donald Trump TIME Person of the Year: How We Picked - 34 views

time.com/-year-2016-donald-trump-choice

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16
     
    "It's hard to measure the scale of his disruption. Now surveys the smoking ruin of a vast political edifice that once housed parties, pundits, donors, pollsters, all those who did not see him coming or take him seriously. Out of this reckoning, Trump is poised to preside, for better or worse."
  • ...24 more comments...
  • nate kliegl on 07 Dec 16
     
    I don't feel like he disrupted anything and I feel like he's sticking to his ideas that will try to succeed America
  • Landon Mohr on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • hmiller403 on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • mitchell_johnson on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 07 Dec 16
     
    I also believe that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he will try to help our country to the best of his ability.
  • savannah131999 on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • bayleefox1 on 07 Dec 16
     
    I would agree Trump should get this. He won it because of the hard fought presidential campaign. He got made fun of etc.
  • Deven Przybylski on 07 Dec 16
     
    I'm not surprised that he won the person of the year, but I don't believe he deserves it.
  • agrosas on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • gracie1bradley on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • delaniehubbard on 12 Dec 16
     
    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?
  • zayned on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • sydney matheny on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • Matthew E on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • dallastomasello on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • brettday on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • madishovan on 12 Dec 16
     
    i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.
  • kim bagshaw on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • jwells549 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • ebouvier878 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • Alex Thacker on 12 Dec 16
     
    I'm not surprised he was picked as person of the year
  • ogomez1025 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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 .
  • mwheeler21 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • amonge914 on 12 Dec 16
     
    When you first see that Donald Trump was named person of the year by TIME it really makes you wonder. After reading this article though it did answer many questions for me. For example, why? According to time it's not about being the best person it's more of who made a greater impact (good or bad). Which he did. He went from a casino owning business man, to President Elect Trump-- doing everything in his hands to influence the people of America to think in a pretty white way if you ask me. Either way, this was a good article it really did answer many questions I had. I bet this was the first time they voted someone person of the year by starting off-- hey it's not that we are on his side, but he made a big splash this year and we wrote on him.
  • Mallori Wagoner on 12 Dec 16
     
    I don't think he should be the person of the year because even though he says he is going to do good things and has done some good things he has also done very bad things and said things about people.
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    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
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    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
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    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?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    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?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    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).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    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?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    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
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
saralong057

Coronavirus: Why are infections rising again in US? | AllSides - 40 views

www.allsides.com/...are-infections-rising-again-us

news

shared by saralong057 on 12 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • saralong057 on 12 Oct 20
     
    Why do you think the number of cases are starting to rise once again?
  • ...38 more comments...
  • bayliegirres on 15 Oct 20
     
    I think they are rising more because people are getting used to covid now and kind of got less strict about the rules and are taking less precautions.
  • abbyparks on 15 Oct 20
     
    I believe that the number of cases is rising once again because the weather is getting colder, and viruses thrive in colder weather. I also think it's because people are starting to get used to covid as well and are getting too reckless.
  • xxchrysxx on 16 Oct 20
     
    No to mention its flu season so it's almost impossible to know if it's one or the other. It's also been said if you have the flu, but think it's covid and go to get a covid test, it could come out positive even though it's just the flu. Also, it's been proven that the covid test is only 90% or so effective and you can have a false test.
  • eoneal271 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I agree with Abby I think that people are getting sick of having to deal with covid and just want it to be over. I think that this winter we will see a decrease in the number of other viruses and colds like the flu because we are wearing masks.
  • lennxbrown on 19 Oct 20
     
    I agree with "xxchrysxx" I have also read about what you've mentioned. It makes you wonder how valid Covid-19 really is.
  • jcooley186 on 19 Oct 20
     
    Going off of what Abby said, I also agree. I've seen many people walking without masks and not social distancing outside, and I think that's one of the main reasons the numbers are going to keep rising.
  • jcollins438 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think that because of the cold weather and flu season around the corner, the number will start to rise again.
  • hharker376 on 19 Oct 20
     
    People are not taking it as seriously as they should and not following guidelines that were put in place to protect us.
  • emilysmith200 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think people haven't been taking COVID 19 seriously, and since it is getting colder and colder it will be harder to contain it.
  • olijohnson on 19 Oct 20
     
    People started loosening the rules and safety regulations lately, plus this is flue season and cold season so I guess its corona season too
  • mmailey052 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think people as time is going on are not taking it as seriously anymore. People are going out not always wearing masks or sanitizing or following the rules as they should.
  • trinitytallman on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think that people are kind of forgetting that covid is a serious thing and aren't being as cautious as they were in the beginning. Flu and cold season is also coming and I feel like it will then be hard to tell who has covid or if it is just allergies/ flu.
  • laurenhansen168 on 26 Oct 20
     
    I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before. They are going out in large groups of people, hanging around lots of people and not wearing a mask like they should.
  • makosa23 on 26 Oct 20
     
    I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before and people aren't wearing mask or didn't wear mask correctly.
  • xxchrysxx on 26 Oct 20
     
    I believe the numbers are rising again because people have become too comfortable. Covid arrived in the united states around January 20-22 of 202. Covid will have been around for 9 months or so now. That is almost a year that many lucky people have gotten to live through. People are just now assuming that, since they haven't gotten it yet they can be lax about the new protocols.
  • scarney230 on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think the cases are starting to rise again because states peeled back their lockdown measures and the cases began to rise
  • hharker376 on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think it is because it is not being taken seriously enough and the lockdown measures are being repealed.
  • briannanixon on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think that people know how serious this is they just don't care because they want it to be over. Also we should have done a better job with the lockdowns measures.
  • trinitytallman on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think cases are starting to rise because people aren't taking it as serious as they were.
  • ethompson038 on 06 Nov 20
     
    I think cases are starting to rise again because people are tired of the pandemic and aren't taking as much responsibility as they should. I think also social media influencers like TikTok stars and Kylie Jenner having major parties and posting on social media are influencing people to disregard the seriousness of the pandemic.
  • meganolson04 on 18 Nov 20
     
    I think the numbers are rising because people are not being safe and as we get closer to the holidays they have parties and gathers which is where it is probably spreading.
  • trinitytallman on 30 Nov 20
     
    I think that numbers are going to continue to rise dramatically because of the holidays, and people not taking it serious anymore.
  • margaretgrover on 30 Nov 20
     
    I think that people have become complacent and aren't taking the proper precautions anymore, meaning that the numbers are going to steadily rise, especially around the holidays.
  • kaeleem on 30 Nov 20
     
    I believe the reason why the number of cases is going up so much is that it seems a lot of people forgot that we are still in a pandemic and go out and run around with big groups of people.
  • scarney230 on 30 Nov 20
     
    I feel since we're so far in the pandemic that people stopped and are not taking it as seriously. that the cases are rising and people are becoming lazy on masks and sanitary needs
  • cmacias539 on 04 Dec 20
     
    I think it's because we have stopped taking covid seriously, we still have parties and only wear masks when we are required to wear them if it was up to us we wouldn't and I know because I go to parties and no one including me wears masks, not proud of it but it's true, no one takes it seriously unless they're affected by it.
  • carmellahargens on 13 Jan 21
     
    i think that it is mainly due the the change in weather. viruses thrive in colder weather. personally i hate wearing a mask and i know a lot of people do too. if you haven't been effected by it, we brush it off because it doesn't pertain to us
  • bigslide on 27 Jan 21
     
    cuz people still dont want to wear a mask for sum reason.
  • thepriceisright on 27 Jan 21
     
    I believe it is because it was made political to wear a mask which is simply just embarrassing for America. People now are wearing masks, but for example in our own state Covid-Kim didn't do anything about the virus and didn't make masks mandatory.
  • lhunter952 on 27 Jan 21
     
    Viruses thrive in cold weather, it is colder outside so more people will be inside together, and nobody likes to wear a mask
  • gbrochu915 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I feel that covid will rise again due to, yes cold weather but also covid has been going on for over a year and people are tired of it and what to go back to their 'normal' lives when we cant yet because it is still around. people want to get back to there old life so they could be taking off the masks to make themselves feel better but it could bring harm to others.
  • abbidominguez on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think a lot of this has to do with people not taking it as seriously as they did in the beginning because either they personally haven't been affected or they got it and it wasn't that bad. A lot of the governors are also putting out restrictions but the second we begin to decrease the spread or see a drop in covid cases they then lift these restrictions which then causes our cases to rise again.
  • mynameisjeff1 on 27 Jan 21
     
    At the start of COVID, everyone was so much more worried about it. The US immediately went into lockdown, schools closed, and the whole country became a ghost town. Once the CDC released more info to the public about this new virus, however, people stopped worrying as much as they should've been. It flipped from 3 cases and mass hysteria to 25M cases and a more lax attitude. Everyone is tired of this, it's been a year and nothing feels right anymore, so as a society we want to rush into the afterparty and return to our normal lives. But as it's the winter months and COVID hasn't gone away yet, now is especially not the time to ignore the virus. Overall, the cases are still rising because we are letting it happen.
  • peytongrenoble on 27 Jan 21
     
    Considering the United States has the highest number of COVID-19 cases on the globe, there should be more light towards getting this over and working towards not having to deal with it at all. Like New York, the entire United States, like other countries, should have done a national lockdown which would have definitely stopped the spread of the cases if fewer people were going out and about. Working towards staying at home and being more cautious will help in the long run.
  • gavync_alhs on 27 Jan 21
     
    Well, this is a bit outdated, and I'd like to know what the statistics are now. However, since the U.S. economy was dropping, I don't think they had much of a choice but to drop the quarantine. Plus, there is a lot of people who aren't educated about the effects of covid, and what it could do to people who have weak immune systems.
  • nick_rice on 27 Jan 21
     
    I believe it is just because people are getting too careless about Covid and won't wear a mask or social distance.
  • bklopp601 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I believe the number is rising up again because people aren't wearing masks, people aren't social distancing and people aren't following the rules and then so they get covid and then pass it on to others.
  • nadialove on 01 Feb 21
     
    I definitely agree with the article because by sending hundreds of thousands of kids back to school and in small hallways and classrooms it was destined to increase the spread even with masks. Tables, door knobs, and rails are hard to keep sanitized consistently. It also says that the ages of 18-22 Covid cases increased by 55% nationally.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I believe the number was rising because people are just selfish. There still is a pandemic and people are more concerned about long-term effects of the vaccine but no one is talking about the long-term effects of covid.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think the numbers back then were rising so quick because people weren't following the covid guidelines, now I feel like things are definitely way better than they were then.
Bryan Pregon

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

www.cnn.com/...index.html

marriage appeals Government

shared by Bryan Pregon on 25 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 25 Sep 12
     
    I'm not sure if we as a society, are prepared for such a big idea to be handled. The Justices are going to, if they take up the case, make some major leaps and bounds for the community, or pretty much end same sex marriage. If the court does take up the case, I am going to want to follow it extremely closely.
  • ...13 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 26 Sep 12
     
    I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 28 Sep 12
     
    Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.
  • Kirstina Michl on 28 Sep 12
     
    I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.
  • Hope Philbrick on 28 Sep 12
     
    I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.
  • Holly Jensen on 28 Sep 12
     
    http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.
  • Alex Snipes on 03 Oct 12
     
    I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.
  • Kirstina Michl on 04 Oct 12
     
    You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.
  • Jazmine Orellana on 04 Oct 12
     
    I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!
  • Alex Snipes on 04 Oct 12
     
    Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d
  • Alex Snipes on 04 Oct 12
     
    Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Oct 12
     
    Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Oct 12
     
    Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 05 Oct 12
     
    Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Oct 12
     
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments (lots of good information in many posts and "food for thought"). Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/yUIP3
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Oct 12
     
    In all reality, gay marriage being a possibility to be legalized, is very interesting. Our constitutional founders, from what many anti-gay's claim, say that the founders were all religious, and did not support gay marriage. The problem with that is the constitutional wording, freedom of religion. Another issue is separation of church and state, this the facts Mr. Pregon gave are interesting, but can we say the religion is a reason as to why gay marriage should/should not be legal? Something funny, although probably irrelevant, is the idea of a church for the gay community to worship as they please, and is accepting of gay marriage. Form some sort of religion out of this, and by that, the gay community can simply do as they please, and get married as they want just by the basis of our constitution. I don't know why, but that thought just came to mind.
mya_doty

90-year-old Florida man charged for feeding homeless people - 28 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by mya_doty on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • mya_doty on 05 Nov 14
     
    (CNN) -- Arnold Abbott handed out four plates of food to homeless people in a South Florida park. Then police stopped the 90-year-old from serving up another bite. "An officer said, 'Drop that plate right now -- like I had a weapon,'" Abbott said.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • efigueroa871 on 05 Nov 14
     
    Whats wrong with that.
  • michaelaheilesen on 10 Nov 14
     
    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.
  • jchristensen043 on 10 Nov 14
     
    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.
  • amcclain946 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • fwyldes753 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • pkleppe761 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • djones036 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • kschwindt on 04 Dec 14
     
    Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.
  • matuszeski on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • kquinlan591 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • bllandon on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • John Scheffler on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • jjohnson749 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • malr2528 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • ravenmaine on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • justin988 on 04 Dec 14
     
    this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??
  • mhart079 on 04 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • Erin Wolff on 05 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • brooklynschroede on 05 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • tcomulada881 on 05 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • chrislindqvist on 05 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • davyana on 09 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • justin988 on 09 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • estuckey767 on 09 Dec 14
     
    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.
  • deanaroth on 10 Dec 14
     
    There is nothing wrong with feeding those who don't have food. But I also believe at some point these people should have done something to prevent themselves from getting to the point that they can't afford food. Everybody gets a chance to try to find a place where they can support themselves. But I also believe it is wrong to prevent someone from trying to help them along, all they are trying to do is make their lives a little bit easier. There is no reason this man should be put in jail, he has done no wrong.
  • jordan fichter on 12 Dec 14
     
    I don't see anything wrong with giving to the homeless, but instead of giving an giving I would try and get them a job or help them
Bryan Pregon

Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion - 9 views

www.desmoinesregister.com/...96662044

shared by Bryan Pregon on 19 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 19 Jan 17
     
    "Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion"
  • ...12 more comments...
  • sydney matheny on 24 Jan 17
     
    It is a women's choice to choose abortion but you have to make sure it's what you want. if you feel you made the wrong choice, you should deal with it because the doctors did what you wanted.
  • mitchell_johnson on 24 Jan 17
     
    I think that this is stupid because the article says that it's a difficult decision for the woman, and that they should get a recourse if they have mental health issues because of the decision. It's the woman's choice to have it done so why should she get money back for her mistake, the doctor has no choice in doing the procedure so they should not get sued for doing their job.
  • kelsi836 on 24 Jan 17
     
    It was the women's choice to get the abortion in the first place. Which means that they wanted the doctor to the procedure. It is NOT the doctors fault if you get an abortion and then feel bad about it. You should NOT be able to sue the doctor for emotional damage. I can understand physical damage only if the doctor did not do the procedure right and the physical damage is because of that. But emotional damage is total ..... Anyway, in the article it says "that many studies show that only a small percentage of women regret their abortions." Regret is NOT the same as emotional damage. Just because you REGRET something that YOU did does NOT mean that you can put all blame on the doctor because of a decision that YOU made. "Chelgren's emotional distress bill says a woman could sue the doctor who performed the abortion anytime during her lifetime." this means that you could have had an abortion 20 years ago and then sue the doctor. It doesn't even make sence and it is NOT the doctors fault for doing his or her job.
  • kim bagshaw on 24 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kelsi because it is the women's choice to have the abortion in the first place and its the doctors job to do the procedure. The doctor did not make the choice, the women did, the doctors are just doing their job. It's like suing a dog for peeing in the wrong place. It's just ridiculous. The only thing it will accomplish is putting abortion clinics out of business causing people to try aborting the child on their own which can cause a lot more deaths.
  • alejandrarangel on 24 Jan 17
     
    I agree with kelsi, I don't think women should be able to sue a doctor for an abortion she choose. The doctor gives you a choose if you want an abortion. You can't blame the doctor of your mistake.Women have a choice and if they decide to have an abortion and if she regret later, then you have to deal with it.
  • lauren rambo on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Sydney, this is ridiculous. It was the woman's decision in the first place, the doctor is just doing his job so I think it's unjust to sue them if they later regret their decision.
  • delaniehubbard on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kelsi! The doctor is doing his job and I think that once a woman has made a choice to or to not to get an abortion, there should be a contract signed that before the doctor does the actual abortion the woman can not sue later in the future. Its not like the doctor is forcing you to get an abortion they are only doing it for the sake of the woman's decision.
  • Landon Mohr on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Sydney and Lauren. It was the woman's choice to get the abortion. Not the Doctor. They shouldn't be able to sue because they had a change of heart and thought they made the wrong decision.
  • sschultz777 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I think that when women choose to have an abortion they are giving the doctor permission to kill their baby. Its not the Doctors fault their just there to make sure you have the procedure done right. Everyone is aware of the emotion damage of losing a child.
  • brettday on 26 Jan 17
     
    Its the woman's decision not the doctors. There just doing there job and if they could be sued for it then no doctor is gonna do it.
  • daulton wilcoxen on 26 Jan 17
     
    Women should not have the right to sue the doctor for carrying out their act kill their baby, because with their body their choice saying, their choice, their consequence not the doctors.
  • hmiller403 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I don't think that women should be able to sue a doctor due to emotional distress after they gave consent to the doctor to go through with the procedure. If they have emotional distress they should blame themselves because they were the one who decided to have an abortion. Now if a doctor forced it then i can see why she would sue.
  • amiahdoty on 26 Jan 17
     
    i think that a women should not be able to sue a doctor for her choice of having an abortion
  • jwelch096 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Sydney, Lauren, and Landon. You made the choice of getting the abortion, and the doctor just did what you wanted. YOU should have made sure that it was the choice you wanted.
Bryan Pregon

Nebraska outlaws the death penalty - CNNPolitics.com - 17 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15
     
    "Six states have abolished capital punishment since 2007 -- Nebraska is now the seventh."
  • ...17 more comments...
  • denniseram on 08 Sep 15
     
    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).
  • seanveazie on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • tiaross on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • amcintosh485 on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • bharold850 on 08 Sep 15
     
    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?
  • allisonwolff on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • kaylawalden on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • gillyhyde on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • sophiataylor001 on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • katiepetersen005 on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • kdamgaard on 08 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • ryanlegg on 09 Sep 15
     
    Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious
  • Julia Gibler on 09 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • austindueling1 on 11 Sep 15
     
    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
  • jacobdizona on 11 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • casandrabristow on 11 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • ryanlegg on 14 Sep 15
     
    but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.
  • chris563 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think its okay if the person that going into it haves killed like 40 people and they in joy doing it but if you just kill some one on accident then its not right just to give them the death penalty, instead they should just be locked up.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Bumped for discussion on Political Ideology.
ataylor074

Virginia move to abolish death penalty part of broader wave of change - CSMonitor.com - 27 views

www.csmonitor.com/...nalty.-What-s-behind-the-shift

shared by ataylor074 on 15 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • ataylor074 on 15 Mar 21
     
    Do you guys think the death penalty should still be around?
  • ...23 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 15 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • tsilva588 on 15 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • kredding147 on 15 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • nick_rice on 15 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • allisonwalker on 15 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • peytongrenoble on 15 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • samhovey on 15 Mar 21
     
    I agree with Allison. The killing of a perpetrator is not justice. The death penalty is outdated and should be abolished.
  • aidan093 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty should still be a thing but I think that they need to change what crimes fit the death penalty.
  • eballenger on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty should remain however I think it should only be if you killed another person on purpose or multiple people.
  • bklopp601 on 15 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • sydneykolln on 17 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • milo_nordman on 17 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • saraivargas on 22 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • vperez191 on 22 Mar 21
     
    They should punish the people that do bad things instead of giving them the death penalty because death is not scary
  • zeaksorensen on 22 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • arosas733 on 22 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • abbidominguez on 30 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • mcaamal on 30 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • lhunter952 on 12 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • samhovey on 12 Apr 21
     
    I believe that the accused should be able to decide between life in prison or death in these situations.
  • joeypo10 on 12 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • tsilva588 on 12 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • eballenger on 12 Apr 21
     
    I think they should have kept it for certain times where it was the best course of action.
  • samhovey on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that the accused should be able to choose between life in prison or the death penalty.
  • vperez191 on 19 Apr 21
     
    they should not have the death penalty anymore. If someone does something really bad, they should get life in prison because they will forever suffer.
Bryan Pregon

Newtown victims' families sue maker of gun used in 2012 attack | Reuters - 27 views

www.reuters.com/...shooting-idUSKBN0JT1QQ20141215

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 14
     
    "The families of nine people killed in a 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school sued the maker of the gun used in the attack on Monday, saying the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • fwyldes753 on 16 Dec 14
     
    I understand there rage towards the gun company, but you can't sue them for selling a gun. that's what there job is, that's just what they do. they didn't intentionally sell it to that guy knowing the terrible things he was going to do.
  • brooklynschroede on 16 Dec 14
     
    I think the gun makers should not allow that gun to be to sold to the public. Its too powerful. But on the other hand the shooter could just get another gun. I don't think its the gun manufactures fault. People do crazy things, and it just happened to be their gun.
  • escheffler on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree that the gun should not have been sold to a civilian and the maker/seller should be sued for the crime.
  • tcomulada881 on 16 Dec 14
     
    They shouldn't sue the maker/seller, it was legal to sell that type of gun at that time. The seller didn't know that Lanza was going to shoot 20 first-graders and 6 teachers.
  • deanaroth on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.
  • amcclain946 on 16 Dec 14
     
    This whole massacre just absolutely angers me. I cannot believe that a gun that would be used in the military was used by a young, inexperienced man to kill 20 children and 6 faculty. Yeah, the gun-maker didn't know that Lanza was going to go out and do this, but they could have sold a different gun (a gun that would NOT be used in the military.) I think the victims' families did the right thing by sewing the gun-maker. He killed children and wives/husbands....LOVED ONES. That's not okay.
  • justin988 on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.
  • kschwindt on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day.
  • djones036 on 16 Dec 14
     
    I think that we should have better background checks before people are sold guns. Also the gunmaker had no idea that Lanza would do something like what he did. The families have a good case because he shouldn't have had the gun at all because it is a very highly powered weapon.
  • pkleppe761 on 17 Dec 14
     
    I do believe that such powerful guns should not be allowed to the public, especially for recreational use. I also do believe that before guns are sold to civilians we should issue many different back ground check systems. This is to ensure no gun is more powerful than the ones the law has and no one who is dangerous has a dangerous weapon.
  • mhart079 on 05 Jan 15
     
    I agree that these guns shouldn't be sold to the public and in fact only used for military purposes. But I do not agree that the maker of the gun should be sued. He just made the gun. He didn't influence the carrier of the gun to do what he did with it. It's like suing a company who makes knives in the same situation. It's all about the user, not the maker.
  • austin807 on 12 Jan 15
     
    Guns shouldn't be sold to the public the maker of the gun should not be sued.
  • Erin Wolff on 29 Jan 15
     
    I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day. You can make the gun, but there's no evidence showing the maker of the gun influenced the shooter to do what he did.
Bryan Pregon

White House proposes arming teachers, backpedals on raising age to buy guns - CNNPolitics - 33 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 18
     
    What are your thoughts on the gun control debate. It will be 1 month tomorrow that Parkland FL school shooter killed 17 and seriously wounded 17 others. Has the outrage become "yesterdays news"? How do the POLITICS of this issue make solutions difficult to reach?
  • ...26 more comments...
  • amberhatcher943 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • jess_townsend on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • taylorknickerson on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • ecundiff150 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • klasale432 on 13 Mar 18
     
    Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.
  • noahlybarger on 13 Mar 18
     
    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
  • valtodd on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • angeljrsanchez on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • ethansnead on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • madelineburns on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • rtanner112 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • donavan772 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • jjuarez101 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • magdafrancisco on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.
  • desyredewberry on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • holson211 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • kierawegner on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • taylormade33 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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
  • gagenosekabel on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • chirsj on 13 Mar 18
     
    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
  • ailenncastillo on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • danielcarson on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • anonymous on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • Connor McHood on 13 Mar 18
     
    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?
  • marrissa_842 on 13 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • nathan2000 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.
  • Connor McHood on 14 Mar 18
     
    Marissa: I agree with the idea that there may be students who could get their hands on the firearm, and it is a point I hadn't thought of before.
  • Bryan Pregon on 27 Aug 18
1 - 20 of 1711 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page