Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged truly

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Jeremy Vogel

Tennessee Teacher Pushed Out For Supporting Free Speech Of Gay And Atheist Students - 1 views

  •  
    In May, the Lenoir City High School faculty was threatened with a criminal investigation for publishing a yearbook story titled, "It's OK To Be Gay."
  • ...8 more comments...
  •  
    This is ridiculous. It's so disrespectful not only to the students but to any community that's suffered discrimination. Who's to say they won't start being sexist or discriminate against African Americans?
  •  
    I don't think it is necessary to put something in a school yearbook about being gay, because there is nothing about being straight. Yes, people may think being gay is OK, but there is no reason for that to be in a high school yearbook, that has nothing to do with the school. If no one is allowed to talk about their religion or God in school, then we also shouldn't be able to talk about being gay. I've never seen a section in a yearbook titled "Its OK to be Christian." Yes, people should be allowed to be gay, but it doesn't need to be flaunted like that.
  •  
    I had read about this story before, and as a teacher I am impressed that Mr. Yoakley had the courage to let his students have a voice. Putting myself in his position, would make for a hard decision when faced with losing a job you love but I hope I would do the same.
  •  
    I understand them not having to have something in the book but maybe it was for their LGBT Club and they wanted to do a story on it just like they would for some other club or student council. I don't think it was right for them to fire the teacher for it. And you can talk about religion in school you just can't try and force or push it on others. I know that here were have a club for christian athletes and they even pray under the flag in front of school.
  •  
    In Iowa, at least, I know that it's illegal for a school to bar a student run publication from publishing a piece. Yes, there aren't sections in yearbooks with titles like "it's OK to be Christian," but I think that's because no needs to be told that. Homosexuality is currently a big political issue. I think that if Christianity were currently an issue as large as homosexuality students would be writing about it. Besides, saying we shouldn't talk about political issues, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to "flaunt" their sexuality is, in my opinion, simply another way of condoning persecution of them.
  •  
    The fact as to how they treated this teacher is outrageous. He is allowing students to express themselves, and the school is completely violating the first amendment. A student explaining there beliefs is allowable, and in no way breaking a law. Considering this is a student written newspaper, you cannot bar that students article simply because it talks about religion. They would be oppressing atheists, and showing support to those with religion, the school should not be able to bar an article like that. This is no different from a student expressing there sexuality. If you truly have a massive problem with it, think of it in the following hypothetical way: An article is written in the school newspaper about the upcoming homecoming dance. There is a little bit of advice for girls saying they should make there man pay for them. This is supporting heterosexuality, and is in no different from an article supporting homosexuality. Either the above hypothetical in the newspaper should be say, man (Or women depending on your interests,) or it should be removed if you cannot place an article about being gay in a newspaper.
  •  
    As a Yearbook student myself, I would honestly be a little surprised if someone brought up the idea to place a story about homosexuality or atheism in the yearbook, but only because the Yearbook tells stories about the entire school year, and doesn't really talk about the opinions of the writers. I personally think that it would make more sense to place it in the opinion section of the school's newspaper. However, if they want to place the story in the yearbook, then they need to be allowed to place it wherever they please. Like most people pointed out, it's violating the first amendment.
  •  
    It's okay for him to stick up for people that are gay or being atheist, but that shouldn't be published in a yearbook, which has nothing to do with school.
  •  
    ^ Michaela it has to do with gay bullying, i believe it is relevant.
  •  
    Michaela, homosexuality is a part of almost every high school. GSA, (gay straight alliance) a club at our school. That alone means it has to do with school. A yearbook article on that would be just as relevant on a article about chess club, or mock trial, or a sport. If you honestly, and truly disagree with me, then how is it not as important as any of those things?
Bryan Pregon

Egypt student gets 3-year jail term for atheism - 18 views

  •  
    " "
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Reading this article makes me feel very grateful that I live in American where I can speak freely about whatever I want and believe in any religion I choose. It's sad that because some one has different beliefs than others, they are charged and put into jail.
  •  
    I think the kid shouldn't be put in jail for this because he is just expressing himself through his beliefs. I'm glad I live in a place where I can have my own thoughts. I can't imagine being put in jail for my view of religion.
  •  
    It honestly makes me cringe when I read that this student was put in jail for expressing himself through his own beliefs. I understand that it's against Egypt's constitution, but I think that they should be able to express their own beliefs....in every country! I'm thankful to live in America because I'm able to express my own beliefs and be apart of any religion I choose to be without being put in jail. I'm grateful.
  •  
    As an American, we know what freedom is. It is sad to see that other countries truly don't get the ooportunities that we do. It's sad that a child cannot ever truly express himself.
  •  
    Reading this makes me quite sad to be honest. And also makes me very grateful to live in a country where its founders believed that everyone should have a right to have whatever religion they wish. A 3 year jail sentence is used for more extreme things here in America, but in Egypt it is obviously a major offense.
  •  
    I think this is wrong in so many ways and I feel very happy that I live in a country where I can say,write and think what I want without getting in trouble with the government. These countries limiting the capacity of a human which makes them to almost robots
  •  
    I think this is wrong but I do think they should be able to express their religion
  •  
    They should be able to express their religion
  •  
    I think that people should be able to have their own beliefes and should not be forced to believe in something. I think making him go to jail is a bit exteme. This makes me gratful that I live in a country where I can express my beliefes and not be punished because they may be different than someone elses.
  •  
    I think it's awful that these people aren't able to express openly what religion they are and get put in jail when they do.
  •  
    They shouldn't of put him to jail for 3 years. I know they don't have the freedom to express their religions if they aren't the main religions but 3 years is way to long for something so small.
Bryan Pregon

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

  •  
    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...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I fully expect Trump to run again for president in 2024 as well as an exponential amount more in votes towards the republican party.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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)
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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

Presidential election tests Facebook friendships - CNN.com - 1 views

  •  
    "Nearly one-fifth of people admit to blocking, unfriending or hiding someone on social media over political postings, according to a recent survey "
  •  
    People seem to be a lot more confrontational when discussing politics online. This article doesn't surprise me at all. On of the comments on the cnn page says this: "We're truly a nation of petulant teenaged adults who can't stand to hear anything but our own opinions trumpeted, and anything that smacks of disagreement, we put our fingers in our ears and sing the "Star Spangled Banner" at the tops of our callow lungs. Good lord, we need to grow up." I agree with it. Whenever people post political statements/articles on facebook they seem to have the expectation that all of their friends will agree with them, and get offended when someone has a different opinion. It's not surprising that confrontations on the internet have led to friendships breaking.
Bryan Pregon

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

  •  
    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...
  •  
    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
  •  
    I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    i think the white house will respond with a no
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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?
  •  
    I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.
  •  
    it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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."
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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!
Natalie Wilson

Victim's son: 'They ran him over because he was black' - 4 views

  •  
    he turned the wheel to hit him so he ment to injure him so it was a hate crime
  • ...15 more comments...
  •  
    In the south it seems like, there are people who will threaten you if you say it's a hate crime when it was a supposed 'Accident'
  •  
    This story seems to belittle the idea of equality and shows that racism will continue and equality might never happen. Really sad
  •  
    what is the world coming to
  •  
    I don't think this man was ran over because of his race. The article clearly states that the teens were under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. I think that the driver did not care what race the man was, he was going to be hit either way.
  •  
    He might have been under the influence but he did say he turned the wheel on him so it would be consider he did it on purpose
  •  
    This is so horrible!! They do it for entertainment and its just wrong. Some people need serious help and put in an institution..
  •  
    Racism is not a joke, and for everyone living in a "free" country, I don't believe anyone really feels that way.
  •  
    Who in there right mind would run over a person no matter what race he or she is?! Even though they were under the influence the driver still purposely hit the man.
  •  
    that just racist!!!! some people need serious help or be locked up in an insitution or something!!!!!
  •  
    Personally, I don't think that racism has to do with this. I think that the person driving was the only one that can be held accountable for the crime, but they all should be held accountable for not doing something about it. I also don't feel it was necessarily a hate crime either. I feel that the driver just wanted to hit that person, no reason behind why. I think that they tried to make it seem like a racist hate crime to make the story more interesting or something. And if it truly was a hate crime, then that is a shame. I guess some people may not ever be able to accept others.
  •  
    I don't understand why people would do something like that to and innocent person. makes my sick when people get the sick thought in their mind to do something like that.
  •  
    I think this is absolutely terrible what those people did, and it's sad that people think because you're that race, and I'm this race, that I'm better than you just for that reason.
  •  
    That is really cruel and racism is not right
  •  
    They didnt do it just for the fun of it. They run BLACK people over to keep themselves entertained. They said it plain and simple and admitted to it. Its just wrong on a whole nother level. I dont even understand what goes through some individuals minds and i dont think i want to understand.
  •  
    The police are obviously not doing their jobs correctly. A black man was killed 3 years before this happened and they did nothing about that either. The FBI should step in and take these cases over, because these cops are hiding something. Even the mother said two of the kids were racist.
  •  
    It's good to see that the teen is being charged with murder, but he should also be charged for the murder being a hate crime. And I'll never know why people can hate someone for the color of their skin.
  •  
    it was a hate crime and an intention to hit the guy
Jeremy Vogel

Westboro Baptist Church Says It Will Picket Vigil For Connecticut School Shooting Victims - 1 views

  •  
    The Westboro Baptist Church, the controversial group known for protesting outside funerals of slain U.S. service members, announced that it will picket a vigil for the victims of Friday's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the second-deadliest school shooting in American history.
  • ...10 more comments...
  •  
    KC news is reporting on petitions to have the Westboro Church classified as a hate group and remove their tax exempt status as a "church" http://fox4kc.com/2012/12/17/westboro-meets-its-match-thousands-sign-retaliatory-petitions/
  •  
    I don't condone the activities of this group but they have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they want with it no matter how hateful it is and people could have private funerals
  •  
    They should leave people be, to bad they most likely never will, Because the parents can't even stop them without likely being sued by Westboro.
  •  
    I do not agree with their way of think about homosexuals. I think that the church should mind their own business in their own sate. The parents and everyone should just ignore the Westboro Church.
  •  
    i think we should ignore the group otherwise we are giving them the attention they want.
  •  
    It is sad that this church will stoop this low to get their (totally invalid) point across. They are a bunch of idiots if you ask me.
  •  
    I think that they have the right to be there, but they should understand that this is not a good time to do this. They should understand how hard it must be for their parents, and would feel the same way if one of their children died. I also do not agree with the fact they blame homosexuality for all the problems and say God hates America. In reality God does not hate anyone because we are all his children.
  •  
    I can truly see the side of the Westboro Baptist Church but it does not mean that I agree with it. I find that America itself has quite a few strange beliefs itself defended by these rights. I don't have any means to go against these rights.
  •  
    I think that they have the ability to not allow the Church to protest.
  •  
    I'm all for free speech. But I think there should definitely be a line drawn as where freedom of speech ends.
  •  
    I hope they lose their tax-exempt status. Here's an article with more information on their 501(c)3 status and how they could lose it. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/westboro_baptist_churchs_tax-exempt_status_challenged_20121218/ Personally, I think their protests are clearly staged with the intent to influence politics. (They want gay marriage outlawed)
  •  
    well if the parents know they are gonna protest have the funeral be private so they can't protest
Natalie Wilson

Man arrested in school abduction - 2 views

  •  
    I read this and the first thing that comes to my mind is why didn't the sister call the police right away if she was watching?
  • ...8 more comments...
  •  
    this is very crazy to think it was in our area. I always feel safe here. Melissa that is what I was thinking you watch it happen an call your dad first,and not the police ?
  •  
    the reason she couldnt get to her right aw was because she was down the street and her dad told her to tell him where they were and he took care of it
  •  
    It's horrible to think that, today, you can't safely send your children to school. If I were a parent, I would be so uncomfortable with the idea that my child is not safe in school, which is supposed to be the safest of all places for children. Something ought to be done about these criminals. I think they walk away too easily, sometimes.
  •  
    I agree with you Sidnie very much so. The older sister was letting the guy grab her sister and not doing anything about it? That does not make any sense what so ever. I bet she would have felt very bad if she let the guy go any further than he did.
  •  
    After something like this happens and your around that area people would on the alert and it easier for people to freak out i believe
  •  
    Why didn't the sister get out of the car and try to do something if she saw what was happening?
  •  
    It kind of shocks when you read about these sorts of things, but it doesn't really register how serious till it happens in your own backyard. We always think "oh this won't happen here" ,but when it does, it truly gets to us.
  •  
    The sister should have called the police straight away. She had no idea if the man was armed so she did the safest thing: not to approach him. It's a scary situation and most people can't think on impulse, the easiest thing would be to get a detailed description of the man and license plate numbers if he were to take her to a vehicle. It's hard just to sit there and do nothing, but sometimes that's the safest thing to do to keep yourself and the victim safe. It wouldn't have done anybody good for both the girls to be kidnapped or harmed. Luckily, however, the girl got away safely and the man was caught.
  •  
    Was there no one else around to see this? The fact that the father had to come and get the guy, instead of a teacher or another adult that was near by, worries me. Everyone should be watching out for the kids, making the school a more safe environment.
  •  
    I agree with Meghan in a way. The man could have been armed, and if he were approached the 10 year old would have been in greater danger. But, I also can not wrap my head around the fact that the father AND sister of the child were sitting there and did not call the police until after the girl got away. What were they going to do if he actually took her?
sophiataylor001

Inmates defeat Harvard debate team - CNN.com - 2 views

  •  
    Inmates from the Eastern New York Correctional Facility defeated the prestigious Harvard debate team in mid-September as part of the Bard Prison Initiative, a program run by Bard College to provide college education to qualifying prisoners, according to the Wall Street Journal.
  •  
    This makes me think of the Toffler reading from our Chpt 1. "It is the truly revolutionary characteristic of knowledge that it can be grasped by the weak and the poor as well. Knowledge is the most democratic source of power." The USA imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world. Obviously there is a lot of talent being untapped by people who chose crime instead of channeling their efforts in positive ways.
Bryan Pregon

President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong | Techdirt - 17 views

  •  
    "President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong"
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Obama is claiming he can't and wont pardon Edward Snowden, also known as the most famous whistleblower in our governments history, solely because he hasn't stood before a court. The president CAN pardon him, but decides not to. Snowden would appear before a court if he knew it'd be a fair trial, but he knows that wont happen. He knows how tyrannous the government is and wont even attempt to have a fair trial.
  •  
    I agree with Deven because as soon as Snowden steps foot on United States soil he's getting thrown into federal prison and then going to go on trial and not win because it wouldn't be a fair trial
  •  
    Deven is correct on this one. The thing I find interesting is that Obama said that if Trump pardons Snowden then he will pardon Clinton, the problem with that is Clinton wasn't convicted of anything.
  •  
    Zayne brought up the Clinton situation, I agree with that because you can't pardon somebody who wasn't convicted of anything, so how would he pardon him?
  •  
    Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because what he did was against the government policy, even though he was trying to tell america what our government was doing he still violated the law.
  •  
    In this article, one paragraph says that Obama pardoned three Iranian Americans before they stood trial. So in a way I think Obama is just using his opinion and not giving Snowden a chance. It's truly unfair that if he steps on US soil he will be thrown in jail, when really he just wants a chance to explain himself
  •  
    I agree with the president on forgiving him because we deserve to know this information.
  •  
    I think Obama could have pardoned him but is choosing not to. The fact that he's saying that he's not able to is ridiculous. Though what he did was considered against the law, sometimes we need people to go against in order to uncover hidden truths.
  •  
    On the idea of pardoning Snowden, I agree with Nate because although the information he had should have been told to the public, just in a different way, he broke major laws, so there must be consequences. And going off of Devin's idea of no fair trial is inevitable.
  •  
    I agree with Lauren because Obama had Pardoned people in the past even though they to hadn't been on trial, so his motives don't make since, I believe that his judgement is what is causing this. I don't believe he wants to pardon him, if he did, than this wouldn't be an issue, it already would be done.
  •  
    I agree with Lauren because the president has enough authority to make those decisions.
xolson974

Obama is rushing to Trump-proof the White House - 2 views

  •  
    Since Election Day, President Barack Obama has appointed 56 people to boards, commissions and offices in the hopes that they remain in those posts for years to come. He has reduced the prison sentences of 79 federal inmates. He has handed out the nation's highest civilian honor to 21 people who he said personally made an impact on his life.
Bryan Pregon

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

  •  
    "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...
  •  
    I don't feel like he disrupted anything and I feel like he's sticking to his ideas that will try to succeed America
  •  
    I believe that Donald Trump was the right choice for time magazine. Everyone has their point of view on him whether it is good or bad. I think that he will actually do good things for this country when he gets elected. He is on the cover of time magazine because they thought he had the greatest influence.
  •  
    I feel like it was the right choice because in the very first paragraph time says "This is the 90th time we have named the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year." Not saying he has done amazing or horrible things he has had the greatest influence on people and I agree on that.
  •  
    I agree with Landon, Donald Trump deserved to be named person of the year because set his plan to become president and "To Make America Great Again". His ideas may hurt our relationships with other countries, but he is focused to help our country first.
  •  
    I also believe that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he will try to help our country to the best of his ability.
  •  
    I would agree with Times choice to pick Trump because as it was stated at the very beginning of the article they named the person with the greatest influence.. For better or worse. Which I would agree with, whether or not you agree with Trump or you believe to deserves Presidency or not, he was one of the top influencers in 2016. You couldn't watch the news without hearing about him. He was very impactful in politics and news in the past year. So whether or not you support him he was one of the most influential people in the last year.
  •  
    I would agree Trump should get this. He won it because of the hard fought presidential campaign. He got made fun of etc.
  •  
    I'm not surprised that he won the person of the year, but I don't believe he deserves it.
  •  
    I have to say that I any happy that Trump did became President, he should the people to not think so lightly of him. He will do good for our country.
  •  
    Everybody has their view on who he is and what he is going to do. Although I don't agree that he should be on TIME person of the year, because there are others who deserve it just as much as him.
  •  
    I think him becoming "person of the year" is a little risky because Donald Trump really hasn't shown us, Americans, what his in capable of yet. Obviously he was capable of becoming president of the United States but what if were unsatisfied with his decisions in the upcoming year? Will Time Magazine regret making him person of the year?
  •  
    Not surprised he won person of the year, I do think we had better options and many people would agree that other would deserve this more than trump.
  •  
    I think he shouldn't have gotten "person of the year" because of what he said towards women and people of color. But other people may have think he deserved it. It's just a different opinion, but I wonder how this whole thing will turn out.
  •  
    Just in general there are many apposing factors about Trump, good ones are him being president and is going to help out communities and so on. Bad ones are Trump ends up being racist and sexist.In my personal opinion, there are many more apposing factors of bad and he is just a terrible person. But many can argue.
  •  
    Trump shouldn't have gotten person of the year. What he says about women and people of color and the way he treats them. That's not what the person of the year should be doing. Some people are for Trump and that's okay because that's their opinion. He'll be able to help out communities but many are against him for being racist and sexist. In my opinion he is a terrible person.
  •  
    Trump is the first president without government or military background to go with them. It's a new feeling in the office that some agree with and some don't.
  •  
    I think that whoever won the election would have won person of the year. Trump won the election and ended up winning the person of the year because he was influential, probably talked about the most and while he was supposed to fall out of the presidential race early on, he eventually won the presidency.
  •  
    i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.
  •  
    I feel like people are so focused on who he is as a person and now who he can become, we can't change the fact that he is president whoever we can accept it.
  •  
    I really hope Donald can do good things for this country. I hope and wish that he will take back the bad and cruel things he has said about women, disabled people, people of color, etc,. I want him to keep his promises in making this country better. But I know he won't. I can't read his mind or read the future but from the looks of it, this can not turn out well. He should not have been chosen for people of the year. A great person, who is open-minded, strong and brave, accepting, a hero even, would make person of the year. But, instead, we all chose a sexist and racist man who has been elected for president. Cool.
  •  
    I agree with their decision to make him the person of the year because he deserved it and people all over the country were influenced by him in either a good or a bad way.
  •  
    I'm not surprised he was picked as person of the year
  •  
    I think that although many people think that it is not apt to be president but has many skills in the part of negotiating and thinking about whether it is a good investment or bad, it should give the opportunity to experience its way of working and if it gives the quality Appropriate to accept it because everything must be for the good of the country and of the people. And truly being president is very difficult and with a lot of organization and choose good decisions .
  •  
    Although I don't agree with how Trump spends his existence in this world I do think that it is appropriate to name him person of the year. The article said that he wasn't necessarily given the title because he has done good. I think this is a good title for him because a lot of 2016 attention has fallen on him, he has impacted a majority of America and weather he makes people happy or unhappy they were still giving him a reaction, so yes I think it is appropriate to name Donald Trump person of the year.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
mitchell_johnson

President Trump is now speculating that the media is covering up terrorist attacks - 0 views

  •  
    Speaking to the United States' Central Command on Monday, President Trump went off his prepared remarks to make a truly stunning claim: The media was intentionally covering up reports of terrorist attacks. "You've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe, it's happening," he said to the assembled military leaders.
Bryan Pregon

Bill C-309 | openparliament.ca - 18 views

  •  
    OK so it is not being proposed in the USA, but this bill recently introduced in Canada is pretty interesting. Think about the people in our country who protest, but don't want their identity to be shown. Would you support this bill or not?
  • ...12 more comments...
  •  
    link seems broken... try this http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/
  •  
    I think its a good law, people should be able to know who you are. If you really wanna protest, you shouldn't care.
  •  
    I believe that if you truly believe in the cause, then you should have to face the consequences, even if that means losing your job or your reputation and status.
  •  
    This bill makes sense. Public safety is at the forefront of this bill, if a protest gets violent or other harmful/unlawful acts occur the persons the are held responsible will be able to be identified. But looking at it from the other side, people might want to conceal their identity at protests, or the masks are part of their protest(example Anonymous). If this bill passes people will be made, if it doesn't pass other people will be mad. Who is the Canadian government ok will making mad?
  •  
    This bill should be passed because if you're risking yourself by already being there, you should have to show your face. Also, if the situation ever turned violent, that person wouldn't get away with it because their face wasn't exposed so they could be identified.
  •  
    I think that this bill should be passed because the police should have the right to identify anyone who is protesting. If you want to protest, protecting your identity shouldn't be a major concern because you would want people to know who you are, and what you are speaking out against.
  •  
    I think if you are going to protest, you are there for a reason, that you strongly believe in, so you should not want to hide who you really are
  •  
    It should be considered that this is a trade for security by means of liberty. Sacrificing freedom for a small degree of protection. If this bill passes, it could easily snowball to other things (this may be a bit of a reach) such as controlling what you can wear altogether just so that you can be identified at all times just in case you might be possibly considering intending to commit a crime.
  •  
    As said in earlier comments, I think that if you want to protest IN PUBLIC then the public has the right to know who you are. If you want you can protest in your house and no one needs to know who you are. But out side of you cant hide from the public if your are going to stand outside with a big sign and yell out things in front of people.
  •  
    I think this should be a bill that becomes a law.
  •  
    I see it as your there or your protesting for a reason so why hide it. If your protesting you believe something is ether wrong or right so why hide your believes. If you don't want to be seen or noticed here's an easy answer don't go!
  •  
    I think that you should be able to wear a mask, because if you're protesting something that you believe in, or don't believe in, than it is a personal matter and you should be able to conceal your identity from the public.
  •  
    I think it might be better if you have to register to be part of a protest but to have the list sealed unless things get violent
  •  
    I think that they should show there faces. Its there choice to go, so then show yourself, dont hide.
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

  •  
    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...
  •  
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  •  
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  •  
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  •  
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  •  
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  •  
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  •  
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  •  
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  •  
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  •  
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  •  
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  •  
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  •  
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  •  
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  •  
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  •  
    I don't 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.
  •  
    Well said Jazmine.
Janeth Cano

Why be against same sex marriage? - 37 views

  •  
    A student from ISU stands up for same sex marriage as he tells his story. Very powerful!
  • ...30 more comments...
  •  
    This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.
  •  
    "marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?
  •  
    If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.
  •  
    I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.
  •  
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo
  •  
    I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.
  •  
    casue it sthe same sex it shold not be
  •  
    this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.
  •  
    I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..
  •  
    they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.
  •  
    I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?
  •  
    I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.
  •  
    Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.
  •  
    I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.
  •  
    i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.
  •  
    "broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?
  •  
    From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk
  •  
    yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.
  •  
    for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought
  •  
    Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.
  •  
    Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?
  •  
    I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.
  •  
    It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.
  •  
    From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...
  •  
    Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.
  •  
    If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....
  •  
    Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?
  •  
    I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.
  •  
    I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights
  •  
    i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
robert jungferman

13 injured in oklahoma state football game - 10 views

  •  
    10 injured and at least it wasn't a soccer game throws can get really bad.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I find these stupid things that people do are ridiculous. People do not think of how their actions can hurt so many. I do not know why people decide to do actions like these.
  •  
    this is what happens at football games sometime, if you cant handle it, dont go. you can still watch the game from this new invention we have called the television from the safety of your home.
  •  
    Football fans aren't even being true fans these days. If they truly respected their team, maybe they'd respect their teams rules. Football has made every go crazy these past few years, i have never seen so many fights, or posts just about football. It's a game... not your life, get over it, don't hurt people just because your psycho.
  •  
    Rushing the field can be dangerous in some situations. You just need to be smart about what you are doing..
Jeremy Vogel

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters - 0 views

  •  
    During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)
  •  
    Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.
  •  
    I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.
  •  
    My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.
  •  
    So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?
  •  
    Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.
  •  
    Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.
  •  
    I agree, people should have to prove that they need help and don't have any other options. Too many people take advantage of the system. I've actually had someone come into the deli where I work and ask if we were hiring, and when I told him I could check, he said he was just asking about jobs so that he could continue receiving unemployment. I think that attitude is way too prevalent in our country.
  •  
    The idea of people needing government aid is very broad. I can tell you now, everyone who has ever gone to school was on public aide, some more then others. The government aides the school you go to, for every student, they receive appx. $6000 per student. Now, if we as students were not on government aid, I can tell you now I would not be at school. My parents could not afford $6000 a year for me to go to school. Not to mention another $6000 for my brother. The average student that stops at high school is there for anywhere from 13-14 years, that's over $78000 just to get every student a high school diploma, all of which is funded by the government. I know that the average income of a household is 63k a year. Now take that down to 50k from house payments, which most people do not complete until at least 60. Assuming the average household has 2 children, you are now down to 38k. Assuming your parents both have to make car payments, that is 12k a year for the average american. 26k left. The middle lower class is now spend, on average they make 40k, and have about 6k left. Now, what about income taxes, regular taxes, gas money, food, water, electricity, injury, insurance, and other daily expenses. The middle class can barely get by. As for people people not being able to make that kind of money, the middle class is primarily college graduates, with a bachelors degree. You would be surprised as to how many people do not have that. As for, they could have made it happen. I would disagree, some people are simply not smart enough to get EVERY scholarship out there. I know I am not one of those that can. It's not fair when someone has potential, and cannot go to college when someone with half the potential can just because they already have money. The more potential student should receive that aide.
Kelly Hickey

Prosecutor: Art dealer Bergantiños Diaz was 'master of forgery' - CNN.com - 1 views

  •  
    (CNN) -- Spanish art dealer Jose Carlos Bergantiños Diaz helped persuade wealthy buyers to shell out millions of dollars for works he claimed famous masters of modern art had painted. But in reality, U.S. authorities allege, the works he sold as Rothkos and Pollocks were fakes painted by an artist he met on a Manhattan street corner.
  •  
    It makes you wonder how many other things out there, claiming to be name brand, or from a famous artist, are truly just regular items that have much less worth.
tori lillard

Chimp attack victim appeals to legislators for permission to sue Connecticut - 4 views

  •  
    This is crazy. But I do agree that is wasnt the states fault for her injuries. I do agree that it was the owners though.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I feel sorry about what happened to her but I don't think it is the sates fault that she was attacked. They weren't the ones that had the chimp as a pet her friend did.
  •  
    WOW. This is pretty interesting. I don't think that it is the states fault. It was her friends pet not the states. If there was anyone to sue I think it should be the friend. But it truly isn't anyone's fault.
  •  
    I feel that they should not be sued. It was not really their fault.
1 - 20 of 30 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page