Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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

If the girl was really threatening her life and possible even the cops or the baby sitter than it was good that the cops Tarazed the girl. it probably saved her and maybe even another life.

Personally, I believe that it was wrong to tase the 8 year old. It could have possibly NOT saved her life. What if she fell and stabbed herself in the process. I do think that it was not, but I don't think that the officer's intention was to hurt her, just save her.

I think the police officer did the right thing because the girl was crazy. And there was really no other way to help the situation. I think that the police officers should maybe have another taser that would be better for children who are crazy!

The parents are just mad because this is most likely reflecting on their parenting. They just need to shut their mouths, don't press charges, and get help for their little girl. I just feel bad for the babysitter for having to go through that and for the police officer because he was just doing what he thought was the right thing to do at that time and who is it for the parents to judge what would best be done when they weren't even there.

Ok, yeah, tasers should not be used on children because kids are just super sensitive to certain things, but honestly, a knife is a knife and although the choice made was difficult, it was very smart. The only other option would be to shoot are tackle her. Tackling can lead to the knife accidently stabbing her and shooting could lead to death. Using a taser as I see it was the best option.

no way a child needs tasered. i mean they do but they dont feel free to taze anyone as long as its in your head but never tazer a little kid..

The police officer felt like he had to in order to save the little girl,the only reason i can think of on why the parents would be suing him is because they are afrais it wil hurt their repetation as a parent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whats wrong with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would something like this would happen?

I don't think his comment wasn't necessary for him to say

He made this statement in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, as stated in the article, who signed the Indian Removal Act. Coincidence?

President Trump's behavior is naturally insensitive and inappropriate. So it doesn't surprise me that he'd make a comment such as that. I do agree that using that word directly insulted their heritage as well as the achievements they've made during the war.

what trump said was mega wrong and it saddens me that he felt the need to throw petty snaps at elizabeth during this night of honoring the navajo code talkers.

I don't think the word itself is insulting but the way it was used made it become that way.

donald did insult the senator because the senator isn't exactly one of his supporters but either way he had no right for insulting her even if she wasn't one of his supporters so in other words he doesn't like the fact that there is a woman indian heritage senator for the united states.

It is a problem that this happened, but the media is "making a mountain out of a mole hill" so to speak.

I think they're trying to make it bigger deal they act like they don't know what type of president the country voted for. Long before he became president he was having issues will racial names and opinions, Being president hasn't changed the situation. You'll just have to put up with it.

It may not have been the word itself that was the root of the problem, but it was the way he used it to try to discredit Warren before, so for him to use it again in this scenario was bad on his part.

trump was in the wrong

His comment wasn't necessary at all, he had no reason to call her that and I think he just dug himself a deeper hole by doing that

I believe it is a racist slur. this isn't the first time President Trump has been racist towards someone. I don't think people realized what kind of person Donald Trump is. He thinks that just because he is president he can say and do whatever he wants, and doesn't care who he hurts or offends.

I think that this should be a big deal because this is just one example of our president being insensitive, and discriminatory. I don't think that these people have a right to say that this slur wasn't offensive, when they aren't native american. A white person can't look at a racial minority group and dictate what is and isnt offensive to that group. If a minority group says something is offensive, its offensive.

I think he was in the wrong for saying that out of petty but others are also making it a bigger deal then it actually is.

I don't understand what president trump wants to do in the future.

Trump's remark was insensitive and childish. He was at this event for the sole purpose of honoring these heroes, but he felt the need to mock Senator Warren. It's not difficult to understand that the name he is using is offensive, especially when he has actual Native people telling him so, yet he continues to behave in this disrespectful manner.

this is why Trump shouldn't be president. He's the worst possible president ever.

I think that Donald Trump needs to be more careful about what he says. He does not need to bring more fights to himself by saying stuff like that, but he shouldn't not defend himself when others bash him. He needs to be more respectful as a President and think before he speaks, because he is representing the United States of America.

I think the media is overreacting

I feel like President Trump shouldn't have even mentioned anything in regards to the natives. He should have just remained on track an honored those Tribal men instead of turning the tables and sounding like he insulted their culture. Plus the media in itself shouldn't have even recorded that, because now WWII is about to happen on the media.

I think that i agree with it being "culturally insensitive" as some could be offended by that, but i don't think I can fully support it being considered a racial slur at this time

This is wrong

As a Native American, I would say it's a nasty generalization. We are not all a stereotype; and I love how he referenced us all to a children's movie that scratches the surface on our culture. It was a disrespectful remark.

He wasn't trying to say it to be racist he was trying to see it to make fun of her but the media of course takes it in a whole different direction

I do believe it was culturally insensitive but it isn't a racial slur.

trump is discriminating against that native of american by using the Pocahontas name as an insult

This is culturally insensitive. He was there to honor those men, not to take a stab at someone he doesn't like.

I think that it is rude to make that comment, but it is not a racial slur

In my personal opinion I feel like what he said was not wrong but I definitely feel the context to the event at which it was said makes it an issue. Poking fun at someone who claims to have Native American ancestry without proof does not seem particularly wrong to me but to do it at an event meant to show respect to code talkers certainly complicates matters.

I think eventually he will give up and admit biden won.

It is very childish of him to make these statements and he should just give up.

This is very childish even though multiple news stations have said that Biden has won he needs to just give up and admit his defeat.

I think he needs to carry himself differently, that is not how a leader would act, crying on Twitter. If he thinks the election was rigged then he should move in silence while he takes things to court, instead of doing the most.

I am not saying I am for or against Trump, but he needs to act like an adult and maybe people will vote if he ever runs again

McConnell is an utter ghoul. Trump, even in the long tradition of criminal presidents, is in a whole 'nother league, and absolutely should be tried for his many, many crimes. The idea that just because he's out of office shouldn't be a factor. That would be like saying a hitman shouldn't be tried for murder just because they quit.

impeaching trump is only going to hurt the Biden admin, the first 100 days are they most important but now with the senate trial people are going to be more focused on that then the thing Biden is doing

If you label Trump as a criminal then you would have to label every other politician as one as well. The fact that he's not in office not only makes him a civilian but trying him at the federal level, just to block him from running again in 2024 is pointless and a waste of congressional time. As well as the American government needs to put the focus on other things than an ex-politician, let's start worrying about getting money to the American people and getting vaccines out.

If the Senate does not vote to impeach Donald Trump it will prove that a President has the power to do whatever he wants as long as his/her party is in the majority. Also, I know that if President Biden was to do the same thing and literally incite a riot on the Capitol then house republicans and republican voters would be calling for impeachment. No matter what party you are, doing what Former President Trump did is disgusting and justice has to be served.

Just like the last impeachment, this one is a waste of time. We need to focus on the US and not Impeaching Trump. Given the current situation, we do not have the time to impeach Trump. If we impeach him it's going to be another 3 months of wasted time just like the last impeachment.

I feel like people tend to judge Trump on how he acts rather than what he has done. Yeah he acts childish but if he's done good things why cant he be credited for it.

I believe that it is totally okay for these people to protest. They are protesting based upon their beliefs and feelings, so they have a right to protest. They feel that expansion in the fossil fuel is going to impact our climate. This is a perfect example of where people are lobbying the Obama Administration through peaceful protest to effect a desired result and outcome of government action.

I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.

Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.

i think we should have the death penalty

Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.

I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.

What would happen if the person was innocent after all?

Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out

It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population

I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.

I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.

Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.

I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served

Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.

better for the death penalty then life in prison.

Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.

Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.

Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!

Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.

unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."

Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.

Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.

FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye

I am prison

Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.

@ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?

I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.

@ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.

I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.

@Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.

He deserves what he is getting. I think he new what he was doing the whole time. That school should feel horrible for not having good enough security to let him bring in a gun.

what is wrong with this kid. he is crazy!! now the school should know they need more security so this wont happen again.

Wow, This is shocking. Oddly enough all I could think about the whole time was how do attorneys do their jobs? How in the world could you be strong enough to defend something like that. That young man is sick.

That is terrible! At least he got what he deserved. I don't understand how anybody in their right mind could do such things.

That kid is sick and twist. He doesn't deserve 3 life sentences he deserves the death penatly

I don't understand why nobody saw that there was something wrong with this person he isn't exactly sane it seem I mean to go and kill people for one, then to go to court and act like he did why didn't anyone try and stop him.

I also support the right to die movement. I watched a really interesting documentary, How to Die in Oregon, about Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. It's a really interesting movie and I'd suggest it to anyone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9334190/Sir-Terry-Pratchett-opponents-of-assisted-suicide-stir-up-needless-hysteria.html This article doesn't mention the movement in the U.S., but I really like what Sir Pratchett says about the opposition to the right to die movement.

Hmm. This is a very interesting and touchy topic. Personally I think that if the patient is mentally stable and capable of making this choice then they should be allowed to do it. If it was me, I wouldn't want to suffer with a terminal illness. This method is just more humane than jumping off a cliff or pulling the trigger

I very much agree with the right-to-die movement and i especially agree with Hayley.

This is quite a weird subject! I think that people should have the right.

i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.

I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.

I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...

I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.

I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.

It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours

a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.

I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?

I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.

I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.

Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"

Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?

I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.

I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?