Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items matching "for" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
madi christensen

Meryl Streep attacks Trump in Golden Globes acceptance speech - 5 views

www.cnn.com/...yl-streep-golden-globes-speech

shared by madi christensen on 09 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • madi christensen on 09 Jan 17
     
    "In her nearly 6-minute address, the actress highlighted the importance of the "most vilified segments in American society right now" -- "Hollywood, foreigners and the press." Without referencing him by name, the actress also blasted president-elect Donald Trump for mocking a reporter with a disability in 2015."
  • ...5 more comments...
  • delaniehubbard on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think "attack" is not necessarily the appropriate word for this particular situation... Everyone is entitled there opinion, and I see how some people could find this unprofessional to do it at such an event like the Golden Globes. I was watching at the time when she said what she did, and the audience applauded her afterwards, so overall I believe that Meryl stated her opinion and theirs nothing wrong with that. I am not for sure, but I do know that these actors are asked to give speeches before hand and rehearse before the show... and she must have been given the right to give the speech anyway, possibly to start talk and get attention.
  • kelsi836 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with delanie because everyone is entitled there opinion. But at the same time, i don't think that this was the time or place to bring it up. But in the same way, it needs to be brought up, just not in that setting.
  • alejandrarangel on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with delaniehubbard because I wouldn't consider it an attack. Meryl was just stating that she didn't think that what Trump did was appropriate. I think it was right for her to address this and she was also correct when she said "This instinct to humiliate when it's modeled by someone in the public ... by someone powerful, it filters down into everyone's life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same." Its not correct for someone that will be the next president to be doing this, because its disrespectful
  • emma spidle on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with delanie because everyone does have their own opinion
  • mwheeler21 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that Streep calling out Trump was very appropriate. When Kanye called out Taylor Swift years ago at an awards show it was glorified so I don't think that a highly respected woman who is voicing her opinion over serious conflict, not trying to start drama or a "twitter war" is very appropriate and is in no way a problem. I agree with everything Streep said and I'm sure many people in the audience and viewing the award show did also.
  • nick perry on 18 Jan 17
     
    Definitely agree with these guys, attack would be pushing it too much. She didn't like what Trump did was all not an attack, even though it was disrespectful, not an attack.
  • trump16 on 18 Jan 17
     
    Trump never attacked an disabled person. The reporter was was normal except that one hand really? The press is going retarded. The hand gestures he did he used that on everyone. He used it on ted Cruz, macro rubio, and obama, But oh no Trump is making fun of someone. Stupid press. Than when she called him out that completely stupid. For one it was lie like i said he never did. For two she was just trying to gain attention, and make everyone feel bad For her. For three she went completely off topic. She is just as pathetic as the press.
Bryan Pregon

Why Donald Trump Blinked on Guns | Time - 30 views

time.com/...donald-trump-gun-proposals

shared by Bryan Pregon on 13 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 13 Mar 18
     
    What are your thoughts on the gun control debate. It will be 1 month tomorrow that Parkland FL school shooter killed 17 and seriously wounded 17 others. Has the outrage become "yesterdays news"? How do the POLITICS of this issue make solutions difficult to reach?
  • ...12 more comments...
  • levihardiman on 13 Mar 18
     
    My thoughts on the debate is that guns should be more restricted, but not completely disallowed. Ideas like banning bump stocks are very good, but going without due process is a side that isn't good. However, the outrage and protesting about mass shootings like parkland and sandy hook should never become just yesterday news and should be a constant focus, but due to media jumping off issues quickly for ratings, how divisive the issue is among political groups, and the NRA lobbying extremely for gun rights, it is hard to reach any sort of conclusion and compromise,
  • saratruong on 13 Mar 18
     
    I do believe that our government did have intentions of wanting to change in order to prevent gun violence, but as time passed, they seem to have little effort now to do anything. Yes, the solution may take a long time for everyone to be on board with, especially to those that support guns, they are now neglecting the idea. From the government's perspective, it seems to be old news to them, but society and civilians are still trying to remind and encourage the White House to make a change.
  • jacklancers71 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think trumps thoughts on arming teacher is a good idea because it would keep schools safe and their students. It would also make the school shootings less likely to happen
  • tylerrardin on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that we should ban bump stocks, and raise the age to buy a gun with stricter background checks.
  • dthomas713 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Sara. It even said in the article that most of Trumps supporters republicans that don't want stricter gun laws. With that being said, he doesn't want to lose those supporters. It also talked about how he was for tightening the laws right after the shooting happened; moving into the idea without really knowing about gun laws. During the luncheon he hosted, he didn't stick to what he had proposed.
  • ghannan137 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think sadly it has begun to become yesterdays news. At first everyone was outraged and everyone wanted results with plans of walkouts and things like that but as time passes people slowly started talking about it less and the press for change lessened.
  • sarahj046 on 13 Mar 18
     
    agreeing with sarah and dthomas how they had put their attention to it at first but after few days and weeks had passed they had lost the interest to put as much attention to it. They do need to put more attention and change the age to buy an assault rifle as it is as deadly as any other weapon, especially to an 18-year-old. The government risks more lives being taken with more school shootings by people who shouldn't have a weapon in the first place.
  • Mackenzie Frush on 13 Mar 18
     
    This outrage has become slightly a thing of yesterday. I know it's not completely out of people's minds because there is still a lot of local and national talk about the walkouts and movements planned to continue the spread of awareness. In this article it states that Trump had changed his mind on the gun legislation a few weeks following the tragedy. He was all for changing the ages and putting restrictions on the gun laws, but was very quick to change his mind after the media died down on the subject. Most of his supporters, shown in private polls, are not interested in changing the gun laws and legislation because he still wants to hold as many supporters as he can. The outrage seems to be yesterday news because it isn't in the media all the much anymore. I don't think our country has moved on from the tragedy yet because there is still a lot of talk about the national walkouts and the other movements that are being pushed to enforce change in the legislation.
  • esorenson on 13 Mar 18
     
    I feel like as the president he should stick with his ideas and support them.Not switch up because hes afraid to upset people.The people voted him in he shouldn't cave because hes scared of the NRA when its our safety he should worry about
  • aasmus466 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Grace. She right it has become old news which is sad, people should talk more about the safety of people. And like Grace said they plan all these walkouts and stuff but people stopped talking about it which made the press quit talking about it, and if the press isn't talking about it then no one else is. And if no one is talking then there is going to be no change
  • chaseburns on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think that this news has become "old". Huge amounts of support at first, but the momentum died eventually. The whole conversation is slowly dying because of the realities of politics too. Like one person said in the article, you can just swing a pen around for a bit and give way to legislation. It takes time. But sadly, this topic won't stay around long enough.
  • molson133 on 13 Mar 18
     
    When these shooting first happened the government had intentions of taking control of gun violence and preventing these type of events. But after a while their effort to control this has reduced to little or nothing. From the governments perspective they think that it will go away and but the community wants to have the laws change.
  • majesticdragon1 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I feel maybe they should be more strict on guns and the background checks be more thorough. just wondering why 21 for semiauto pistols but 18 for fully auto AR's. It should be the other way around.
  • cceder858 on 13 Mar 18
     
    its yesterday news because after the shooting we been talking about to raise the age in assault rifle as in the last couple of weeks so this shooting gave a heads up about school safety and the age to buy assault rifles.
jessicasolorio

Can people bring guns to voting sites? You might be surprised - Los Angeles Times - 27 views

www.latimes.com/...guns-in-polling-places

shared by jessicasolorio on 26 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • jessicasolorio on 26 Oct 20
     
    What's your guys' opinion on this?
  • ...28 more comments...
  • gozzello162 on 26 Oct 20
     
    People should not be allowed to bring guns to the polling stations. These can be used as a form of voter intimidation which is a crime, though at it's core I have respect for people's right to carry, guns should never be used to scare or intimidate voters
  • hharker376 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed. This could cause many harmful things including intimidation and crimes against a particular group of people.
  • josephinelamb on 26 Oct 20
     
    No, people should not be allowed to bring guns to polling stations.
  • emilysmith200 on 26 Oct 20
     
    No, people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to voting sites. I feel like this will create more problems than solutions.
  • jcollins438 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed
  • olijohnson on 26 Oct 20
     
    I dont think people should be able to bring guns to a voting site
  • makosa23 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be able to allowed
  • bayliegirres on 26 Oct 20
     
    I don't think there is a reason they should even feel the need to bring a gun to a voting site. But no they shouldn't bring a gun.
  • mmailey052 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed I think that this could cause major issues with other people and safety.
  • trinitytallman on 26 Oct 20
     
    People should not be allowed to do this. What would the purpose of having a gun be? Something bad could happen if this was allowed.
  • saralong057 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This shouldn't be allowed. It's unnecessary and could cause an even bigger issue than there would have been if a gun hadn't been brought.
  • scarney230 on 26 Oct 20
     
    i feel having fire arms there would not be okay and it would not be safe many things could haoppen it could cause chaos
  • Bryan Pregon on 26 Oct 20
     
    Thanks for posting this Jessica! A good amount of responses so far. I will post a wikipedia link for state-by-state carry rules. If that isn't tricky enough, some states have laws differentiating "carrying" a firearm and "brandishing" (holding it pointed toward someone). I suspect we will be hearing more about this over the next week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Iowa
  • cmacias539 on 26 Oct 20
     
    No people shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun because agreeing with someone else's comment, it would only cause more problems than solutions, therefore it is unnecessary.
  • laurenhansen168 on 30 Oct 20
     
    I don't think people should bring guns to the voting site because it may cause others not to come and may scare people. It would not be safe and there could be many things to go wrong.
  • jcooley186 on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think bringing guns is super unnecessary to bring to a polling site, it could scare people away and possibly be the cause of an injury or death.
  • carmellahargens on 13 Jan 21
     
    i think that unless you have your concealed carry licence, you should be able to bring it. yes, there is a chance of people being afraid, but there is nothing you can do about that. it isn't going to harm the election in any way and there are rules that have to be followed in order to be given the privilege of the license in the first place
  • bigslide on 27 Jan 21
     
    why would you bring a gun, something for self-defense, killing, hurting... to voting sites? ummmmmmm
  • thepriceisright on 27 Jan 21
     
    I simply do not see the point. I mean sure you can bring them if you are licensed but that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you because clearly, the purpose is to make a statement, and not for self-defense. It's not like a grandma is going to point a gun at your head and make you vote Biden.
  • ataylor074 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I personally think that you shouldn't be able to bring guns to voting sites. People are already intimidated going to these places to vote, and adding weapons would just cause more harm than good.
  • nadialove on 27 Jan 21
     
    I personally don't believe there is any reason to bring a weapon to voting sites at all. There should be no weapons in a building during a government event.
  • gavync_alhs on 27 Jan 21
     
    If the gun holder has a licensed weapon and has years of experience with guns, then I think it wouldn't be a problem. A problem I noticed in the USA is everyone is very paranoid about guns, but not the person holding the gun. If the person has had little to no mental health issues and had years of experience with guns, then It shouldn't be a problem.
  • matts999 on 27 Jan 21
     
    It doesn't make sense for people to be able to open carry firearms because votes could feel intimidated by the weapons into voting for a candidate they don't actually like.
  • hannahliwai on 01 Feb 21
     
    i can't think of a reason of why people can bring guns into voting places. yes, they have a right to own one, but i don't think you need to carry a gun with you to vote
  • eballenger on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think it's okay for someone with a license to carry to bring one in because that's the entire purpose of a license, but I think it should be kept to only small firearms in the event that someone were to attempt to attack a voting site.
  • pcloyd_flanagan on 01 Feb 21
     
    I do not think people should bring guns to voting sites there is absolutely no reason. It only takes one person to get mad or get their feelings hurt and then start shooting then people are hurt or even dead. Especially when the world and the people are like the way they are right now.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I don't think that people should bring guns to voting sites because it would be easy for them to just decide to shoot it up if people don't agree with them.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    I don't think it's a good idea to bring guns to voting sites because there is no point to. You wouldn't be in danger more than likely so there is no reason to take a gun with you to vote. And it may make other people uncomfortable and feel less safe while voting.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    It's a bad idea. Why would someone need to bring a gun to a voting site? Just vote and then leave. leave your gun at home for this.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think it's a bad idea to let people bring guns to voting sites because theirs literally no reason to, there going to vote, and if anything letting people take guns will just make it worse.
Bryan Pregon

Biden's COVID stimulus bill passes Senate, legislation heads to House - 15 views

www.usatoday.com/...6886446002

shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21
     
    "The Democratic-controlled Senate Saturday overcame Republican roadblocks and a debate that lasted beyond 24 hours to pass President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package which would provide millions of Americans with $1,400 direct payments, billions of dollars for vaccine distribution, and funds to help reopen schools and colleges."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 08 Mar 21
     
    The stimulus bill sounds like a good deal for Americans. COVID-19 negatively impacted many people, so it's good that the government is trying to help get the country going after COVID-19.
  • abbidominguez on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think this stimulus bill is necessary and will be a step forward in the right direction. Although things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction there are still a lot of people without a job and in need of assistance so I think this will help those people out tremendously.
  • alejandro4 on 09 Mar 21
     
    This could go both way's as in good and bad. Good:So people can get some help from the government to help pay off debts or just put food on the table. Bad: some people can become to reliant on the government for money.
  • vperez191 on 15 Mar 21
     
    this stimulus check is going to help a lot of families especially the ones who already struggle.
  • lhunter952 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I feel like the stimulus is a good thing for a lot of families that have been struggling throughout the pandemic. It is also bad in the way of tax inflation and things of that nature. Although I feel like it was needed for some, it might be damaging in the future.
  • kinziekat02 on 15 Mar 21
     
    technically we could get 12,000 for a stimulus check but the government is not willing to do that.
  • joeypo10 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I feel like this is a relatively good amount for a stimulus check because the amount of inflation it will create will be far less than if the check was bigger.
  • hannahliwai on 22 Mar 21
     
    i think the check is a step in the right direction. it's giving families coverage and more cushion to their budget.
  • bklopp601 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think this is a good check cause it will help people in the mere future and possibly in the present.
  • tsilva588 on 22 Mar 21
     
    So depending on who you are it could be a good thing or an iffy thing I believe that most people around our area would all agree that it's a good thing and I think so too.
  • eballenger on 24 May 21
     
    I think its good cause people could use this money during this time
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I think this is good because it gives people who lost money during covid a chance to buy some extra things for themselves or their families.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think the stimulus check was good for a lot of people that really did need it since they didn't have a job due to covid.
Bryan Pregon

Trump and his wife Melania test positive for coronavirus | Reuters - 8 views

www.reuters.com/...-for-coronavirus-idUSKBN26N0K4

shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Oct 20
     
    Global reactions have ranged from "Get well soon" to "I told you so" to even more blunt "wishes" for Trump. Remember that we are discussing this in an educational context for those who are going to comment on this situation. How do you think this is going to affect the election with only 32 days until the election?
  • ...12 more comments...
  • eoneal271 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think that a lot of people are happy t0 see this happen based on what he says about coronavirus. Personally, I do not think that it will make a difference in what he says about coronavirus. The reason that I believe this is because Trump is most likely going to survive coronavirus because he is getting the best medical care around. I think after that he will still talk about how it is still a hoax becuase he survived it.
  • emilysharp on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think that Trump didn't believe in COVID-19 until it actually happened to him and I hope that he will be more empathetic toward Americans going through this too. It did say he was symptomatic and that he is at high risk so there's a possibility that he might not make it.
  • mmailey052 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think now that Trump has COVID-19 his political campaign will be impacted. He will need to be in quarantine for at least 2 weeks and with so few days left until the election, his campaign will be at least a little bit impacted. Even though he has COVID-19 I don't think his outlook on it will change at all.
  • laurenhansen168 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I hope now that Trump has COVID-19 he will be more willing to help other people with it and now be able to understand what others are going through.
  • trinitytallman on 05 Oct 20
     
    I hope that Trump is more willing to help people and realizes that coronavirus is a serious thing, now that he has it.
  • aurora216 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I hope that Trump realizes that now that he has COVID-19 that it's a serious thing and helps other people with it.
  • olijohnson on 05 Oct 20
     
    Its funny this happened right after he was making fun of biden for wearing a mask
  • jessicasolorio on 05 Oct 20
     
    Hopefully, Trump is less insensitive to those who have COVID or have a family member who has had it and realizes how real and bad the virus can really be.
  • ethompson038 on 09 Oct 20
     
    I think it's ironic how after he's been saying for months that masks don't work and that the pandemic is a hoax that he contracts COVID. But even though he does have corona, he still isn't taking it serious. He's taking off his mask two days after the diagnosis in front of a sea of reporters and I just think it's despicable.
  • gozzello162 on 12 Oct 20
     
    I think that Trump with remain ignorant to the real effects of COVID and will continue to promote unhealthy recommendations to the public. I don't think having COVID will change him at all as he continues to display his normal narcissistic and dangerous behaviors that he always had
  • jcollins438 on 12 Oct 20
     
    It sounds like he is starting to take precautions and is learning from previous choices he may have made.
  • bradenlasale on 12 Oct 20
     
    I think that Trump is going to continue to take advice from the scientists but he is going to do what he feels is needed to "protect himself" from the Corona Virus. This doesn't mean he isn't going to not follow the ppe guidelines fro when in public.
  • kennalee04 on 12 Oct 20
     
    I think it's good he got it because he's learning how serious it really is. sometimes it takes the first-hand experience to realize the truth about something. I think this is a slap in the face to some of the republicans that didn´t believe it.
  • cmacias539 on 03 Nov 20
     
    I think it's kinda like karma for making fun of joe for wearing his mask all the time, although it does make him look bad because the president of our country makes fun of people for protecting themselves and taking covid seriously.
Bryan Pregon

Flag burning: President Donald Trump calls for Supreme Court to reconsider flag burning laws - CNNPolitics - 14 views

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Jun 20 - No Cached
  • jmrgm16 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I think it's honestly disappointing that Donald Trump is going against our first amendment right to burn the flag because I just think it's a piece of fabric and there are tons and tons of flags sold almost everywhere in the U.S.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • xxchrysxx on 03 Sep 20
     
    Yes, he is the president, but the first amendment was made the first amendment in 1791 and is still the first amendment today. In today's day in age, change is all around us but, we choose no to change certain things because why fix what's not broken. if the first amendment hasn't changed since then, then there is no reason to fix it.
  • bradenlasale on 14 Sep 20
     
    I think it is completely disrespectful to the people that fought for this country and families who are handed that flag when their kid has died in battle and you people think it's okay just to burn it and think of it as just a piece of fabric. It is a resemblance of what people fought in for..this country, freedom.
  • bayliegirres on 14 Sep 20
     
    I think burning the flag is so disrespectful. So many people fought for our country and the flag is a way of honoring them. I agree with Trump, it is a disgrace that people think it is okay to burn the flag.
  • briannanixon on 15 Sep 20
     
    I think burning the flag is disrespectful. Not just because it is the flag of our country but because so many people have fought and sadly dead for this country and we should respect that. There should be a consequence for burning the flag.
  • mmailey052 on 21 Sep 20
     
    I think burning the flag is very disrespectful. We have so many people who fight for our country under the flag. I think that burning it is disrespecting the dead soldiers and our own country. I think a punishment should be put in place for anyone who purposely burns a flag.
  • emilysmith200 on 23 Sep 20
     
    I agree with Marissa; burning the flag is very disrespectful, and if this happens I will be very disappointed.
  • jcooley186 on 28 Sep 20
     
    Burning the flag is definitely not a good thing, as many people above have talked about, it is disrespectful. But I think making laws like "Loss of citizenship" or "Jailtime" is a bit much compared to many other crimes going around unpunished now.
  • aurora216 on 28 Sep 20
     
    I agree no one should burn down the US flag because it's not right.
  • kennalee04 on 28 Sep 20
     
    loss of citizenship is extreme but I understand the concept, like if you hate this country enough to disrespect our most meaningful symbol and the many people that fought for the right to fly the flag why not just leave? they should definitely be punished in some way.
  • olijohnson on 28 Sep 20
     
    Historically I can understand why people don't like flag burning, but it should in no way be criminalized. It may symbolize something but when you break it down its just a piece of cloth you can buy for a dollar.
Bryan Pregon

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

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

petition texas

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

2-STATE CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE REACHES SUPREME COURT - 0 views

www.westmichigandivorce.com/...le-reaches-supreme-court.shtml

Government Politics News Supreme Court

shared by Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 07 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Jan 13
     
    Interesting issue. Biological father suing for visitation rights for baby he relinquished custody over when he and girlfriend put the infant up for adoption. I am curious to know what you think should happen.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 08 Jan 13
     
    I think that the adoptive parents should be able to keep the child because I agree with the adoptive father they should not be able to use the tribe law when the child was given up for adoption even after the child was born so she was never taken away from the tribe.
  • mdollen288 on 08 Jan 13
     
    I think that her Biological father should actually get a chance to raise his daughter but It's interesting since in today's day and age there are some parents that give away there babies but then they realize they shouldn't have since they would have been able to take care of themselves and the baby, In some cases when the children are returned to there biological parents instead of there adopted parents it can actually be healthier and better for them.
  • Melissa Christensen on 08 Jan 13
     
    I feel bad for both sides of this issue and most of all the child in which it involves. Although I believe that the child should be in custody of their biological father.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 09 Jan 13
     
    These situations are always sad in my opinion. I really feel bad for the biological father but I don't think he should get custody of his daughter. He signed away his custodial rights for whatever reason and he shouldn't, in my opinion, be able to back track on that after his daughter was adopted by another couple. The adoptive couple raised her for two years and they formed a bond and loving relationship which would be unfair to both the couple and the little girl to take away because the father decided to "take back" his custodial rights after giving them up.
Bryan Pregon

A Saudi woman tweeted a photo of herself without a hijab. Police have arrested her. - The Washington Post - 19 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...b-police-have-now-arrested-her

shared by Bryan Pregon on 14 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 14 Dec 16
     
    "Late last month, she tweeted a photo of her outfit, and the post circulated through Saudi Arabia, drawing death threats and demands to imprison or even execute the woman. On Monday, police in the country's capital of Riyadh said they had arrested the woman"
  • ...19 more comments...
  • Landon Mohr on 15 Dec 16
     
    I know it is their culture to where a hijab but the woman should get freedom. They shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace towards women. What she did was her belief and I think other women in Saudi Arabia don't want to wear their hijab all the time but they are too afraid of what will happen to them. Now that she has done it maybe other women will follow in her footsteps.
  • kelsi836 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I understand that wearing the hijab is important to this religion and this country, but isn't it going a little far by arresting her? What they are trying to prove is that the country has a power of fear over it's citizens, mostly it's women citizens. This shows the importance of how religion and state should be separate because if it was, she wouldn't have gotten arrested.
  • emma spidle on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon now that she took off her hijab maybe other women will follow in her footsteps
  • lmcdowell956 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon because, the woman shouldn't have to wear something they don't want to wear all the time.
  • lauren rambo on 18 Jan 17
     
    Nobody should be told what to believe or how to dress. This woman was simply expressing herself but was arrested for moral disagreements.
  • nate kliegl on 18 Jan 17
     
    Landon got it right by saying she should get the freedom to wear whatever. And no woman or man should be disgraced by what they wear
  • brettday on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Lauren on that people should have the freedom to dress how they want
  • kplowman702 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Lauren. The women should express herself in anyway she wants.
  • jakecolburn on 18 Jan 17
     
    This seems nuts. Like a spoof of middle eastern living on youtube. Does not seem real that a lady would be threatened with death and imprisoned for wearing a dress and coat. this is very different from my reality. I obviously think she should wear what she wants, it think the real issue is understanding that there is a large number of people that do not feel the same way.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 18 Jan 17
     
    She should have the freedom to dress how she wants and maybe others will follow her by dressing how they want.
  • hmiller403 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think she is brave to stand up for what she believes in, many women there are too scared to throw out the head scarfs and put on something that they feel nice in. I think she should be let free and allowed to wear whatever. There is no legal dress code there it's just considered taboo which is wrong.
  • jwelch096 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon because this woman is now facing death all because she wanted to make a statement for women.
  • Matthew E on 18 Jan 17
     
    Unfortunately for the Arabic culture this is illegal and is shamed. With our culture this would be welcomed because people are allowed to show their skin, but with them its shamed and its not going to change.
  • jwells549 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think it is unfair, sexist, and probably uncomfortable for the women. (Besides the constant torture, rape, imprisonment, etc etc that happens in saudi) they are being punished for wanting to be equal and expressing themselves.
  • kim bagshaw on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that the woman is trying to promote change however she did not do it in the right way. Her actions were wrong because if its just her doing it than it won't have as much of an impact as it would if 20 or more did it. However if she really wanted to not wear them than can she just move to a different place so she can. I will admit arresting her is silly and doesn't solve anything, it could promote not wearing them by arresting her if you think about it.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kim that she's trying to promote change, but I also understand that there are morals that the country believes women should follow. Instead of just her breaking the moral she should have gotten other women to join so there would have been more of an impact and something could have changed.
  • ebouvier878 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that even though it does not seem right, that is what the country believes and she knew that something was going to happen.
  • Alex Thacker on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think it's her freedom to dress how she wants and she shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab
  • ogomez1025 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that people have the right and free from what they want to wear only that it is not inappropriate to offend people depending also if they are in a place such as black people or other people of different ideologies and have some message discriminating That is a different way but for the rest, there is always freedom of expression and of being able to dress as one always wants and when one does not in a bad way.
  • bayleefox1 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I know it is their culture but the woman should get freedom, shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace, you should be able to do/wear what you please.
  • amonge914 on 18 Jan 17
     
    It is so crazy how around the world women are held to higher or even lower expectations when it comes to, education, clothing, physically beauty and intelligence. How is it even possible to imagine a world where the clothes you wear lands you into jail? There is justice that needs to be served her to have an innocent women in jail. There has to be something that is done for the world when it comes to woman suffrage. The hard part isn't going through with a plan to do that, the hardest part is finding a plan-- to do just that.
Bryan Pregon

Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized - May. 10, 2016 - 18 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 11 May 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 May 16
     
    "Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers have soared in the state of Washington since marijuana was legalized there, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive, according to a separate study from the same group."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • lizretikis on 11 May 16
     
    I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.
  • calebsnead on 11 May 16
     
    Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.
  • egessert on 11 May 16
     
    I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.
  • zander0823 on 11 May 16
     
    If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.
  • tyjeff22 on 11 May 16
     
    I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug
  • ivanhessche on 11 May 16
     
    But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,
  • kyleighsev on 11 May 16
     
    If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.
  • morgandooty on 11 May 16
     
    I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.
  • mjones776 on 11 May 16
     
    I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.
  • emmaseilstad on 11 May 16
     
    I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.
  • msap832 on 11 May 16
     
    There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said
  • epond857 on 12 May 16
     
    there is a way but its not like a brethalizer or anything like that for alcohol and other stuff.they can give u a piss test and it will tell weather u are on weed,pills and a bunch of other stuff so there is a way but i dont think that they think about it at the time.
  • bclayton731 on 12 May 16
     
    I think they need to do at least 10 to 20 years of research to confidently say marijuana is bad and causes this to happen so it should be illegal or its not so bad and can stay legal. I think its highly likely the deaths will go up for stoned driving for the first couple years then go down.
jourdanpfiouts

Trump Signs Memo Implementing Ban On Transgender People Enlisting In The Military : The Two-Way : NPR - 9 views

www.npr.org/...sgender-people-in-the-military

shared by jourdanpfiouts on 28 Aug 17 - No Cached
  • maxaqramirez on 28 Aug 17
     
    "President Trump has signed a memo implementing his new policy on transgender people serving in the armed forces."
  • ...9 more comments...
  • mason_mower on 29 Aug 17
     
    So what is the difference between a Transgender already serving and a Transgender trying to enlist to serve their country? They're still humans, and they still have the same rights as everyone else. "The only exception is for transgender service members already in treatment."
  • maxaqramirez on 29 Aug 17
     
    @mason_mower Transgender individuals that are currently in the military can stay, but no money will be spent on any medical costs for them. I agree, anyone should be allowed to serve their country, considering they are mentally and physically capable, no matter their identity.
  • tayonnathomas on 29 Aug 17
     
    I wish I could understand the logic coming from this. Discrimination is just wrong.
  • Brennan Plummer on 29 Aug 17
     
    It's interesting that while campaigning in 2016, Trump stated ""Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.", but now he has become a person that threatens their freedoms and beliefs. His main reason for banning transgender people is the cost of surgeries and other care. Saying that the military was being burden by "tremendous medical costs." However, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 put the number at of transgenders at 12,800 and the cost of care at $4.2 million to $5.6 million and concluding that "doctors agree that such care is medically necessary." And that the cost of care for transgender people is only a tenth of the cost of the annual $84 million dollars the military spends to treat erectile dysfunction.
  • minaduquette on 29 Aug 17
     
    This is a big step backwards for the trangender community. makes me sad
  • stocktonthomsen on 29 Aug 17
     
    "The privacy of service members must not be infringed. This means that no soldiers, including those who identify as transgender, should be allowed to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite sex. When it comes to barracks, bathroom, showers, etc., the privacy of all service members must be respected. Given the nature of military living quarters, it is unclear where soldiers who identify as transgender could be housed." One of the reasons I don't believe transgender should be allowed to serve in the Military.
  • maxaqramirez on 30 Aug 17
     
    @stocktonthomsen Although I understand your concern Stockton, many transgender individuals are completely comfortable being housed in the sex specific facilities of the opposite sex. Considering some of them have stalls or something along those lines, the transgender individuals could change clothes and use the restroom/bathing facilities without exposing inappropriate parts. Also, considering the large military budget we have, we could afford either building separate barracks for the transgender individuals, or at least adding stalls to certain barracks so the individuals can wash up and use the restroom in peace.
  • maxaqramirez on 30 Aug 17
     
    Also, why does the gender matter of the person fighting? As long as they are capable of fighting, it should not matter. They want to fight for their country, so let them. @stocktonthomsen
  • stocktonthomsen on 05 Sep 17
     
    "As far as the actual psychological issues at play, it used to be called gender identity disorder; now they call it gender dysphoria. The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true. I'm not denying your humanity if you are a transgender person; I am saying that you are not the sex which you claim to be. You're still a human being, and you're a human being with an issue then I wish you Godspeed in dealing with it in any whatever way you see fit, but if you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend, I'm supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no. I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are." -Ben Shapiro Desiring to be trans is ridiculous
  • maxaqramirez on 06 Sep 17
     
    @stocktonthomsen I do not trust your quote source, as he is not an expert in the field of biology/psychology. Fun fact: Brains have actually been scientifically proven to be genderless. If you want to bring up biology, I'd like you to know that it is possible to be a female bodied individual with three X chromosomes, a female bodied individual with one X chromosome, a male bodied individual with two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, a male bodied individual with one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes, etc. And what happens when a transgender individual actually has the bottom surgery? What then? Do you seriously want to say that they are still women (if they were born female) or that they are still men (if they were born male) even though they have the sex organs for the opposite sex? Would you still say they should be in the barracks of the sex they were born with? Would you still say that person should use the bathroom of the sex they were born as? If you really want to convince me that I should not serve in the military because of my gender identity, you need to bring in stronger arguments and better sources.
  • maxaqramirez on 06 Sep 17
Bryan Pregon

The Morning: 'Covid zero' isn't happening - 25 views

messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/...oakv2

shared by Bryan Pregon on 24 Feb 21 - No Cached
  • sydneykolln on 01 Mar 21
     
    This article really opened my eyes to see how the flu compares to the Coronavirus. Even with the vaccines rolling out, Covid cases will still happen even if they are decreasing. It will take numerous years to get back to "normal" and hopefully, this pandemic opened our eyes to realize just how serious these diseases and viruses can be.
  • ...18 more comments...
  • zeaksorensen on 01 Mar 21
     
    i have thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear. but it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines and people becoming immune.
  • zoedeveney on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think this article kinda showed me a perspective that I didn't really think about. I kinda just blew off everyone saying it was gonna go away because obviously, that's just people being optimistic. But reading about the number of serious cases covid/flu wise made me realize that it is managable.
  • carsonschaa on 01 Mar 21
     
    I thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear and life wouldn't be life anymore, but I wasn't going to think about bad so I thought to myself, it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines older people have a better chance of becoming immune.
  • vperez191 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I did not expect that the covid deaths were going to be that high than the flu deaths until I saw the graph that the article has. I'm glad that the covid vaccine is out so it can help sick people.
  • lamador794 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I also believed that it was going to be very hard to get rid of or at least control covid but now I realize how our Nation has used all types of advanced technology and knowledge to stop it. Ieven see how we have achieved such as great overcome, the cure.
  • hannahliwai on 01 Mar 21
     
    "For fully vaccinated people, serious illness from Covid is extremely rare, much rarer than serious illness from the seasonal flu." i think this is great! seems like the vaccine is working! I have a question though... any update on the age limit For vaccines? i know when they first started, it was 16+ and then it was 18+... in china, they were vaccinating children as young as two.
  • bklopp601 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I believe that covid cases will happen even when they are decreasing. I looked at the chart and was surprised at the difference between covid and all of the other diseases.
  • jdogan on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think the thought that Covid is just going to disappear with the preventative measures has mostly just been a necessary lie or at least has intentionally not fully been explained just for the consequences of people seeing it as never going away. People already don't want to follow guidelines, but if it's never going to go away I think that would embolden a lot of people to completely disregard guidelines unrightfully.
  • aburianek421 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think that if we had acted faster and with more intention at the beginning of the outbreak, we could've been back to normal already. Australia had some of the harshest quarantine restrictions before things really got bad and they're essentially back to normal already. As long as we don't get overconfident maybe we can avoid extending this quarantine longer that it needs to be... again.
  • ericschmidtberge on 01 Mar 21
     
    In the first few weeks, I did think covid would just blow over but after a year of living with it clearly didn't. I think that as time passes hopefully in the next year or two the vaccines will help create immunity and keep people safe and eventually we can return to a somewhat normal life. I've heard the analogy of covid being like how airport security came to be. A sad tragedy occurred but because of that event, we learned to put precautions in place to prevent it from happing. I feel like once covid gets under control we will be better equipped to not only survive another virus if that is the case but we are also better equipped to prevent the sickness and death from existing ones as well.
  • tsilva588 on 02 Mar 21
     
    We're still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around but the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people. So I think that within the next year these cases will go down.
  • milo_nordman on 05 Mar 21
     
    This article was definitely an interesting read. I think that even with the vaccine being given out it will take time to get back to normal, especially when people are still disregarding safety guidelines.
  • carsonschaa on 08 Mar 21
     
    I agree with tsilva588 because we are still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around. But the whole world hopes that the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people because I think within the next year these cases are going to go down.
  • thomaschau on 08 Mar 21
     
    With the Covid vaccine rolling out, I think the number of fatalities from Covid will go down, But I think the number of people getting infected won't be going down by a large percentage since people don't trust the covid vaccine and people even then don't want to wear a mask. I think life won't be normal for the next 2-3 years.
  • arosas733 on 08 Mar 21
     
    This article was interesting to read and very true, it won't go away completely but hopefully, soon we will be going back to normalcy. We have been learning to live with it and just like any virus, it is going to die out but we should always be cautious no matter what. Keep clean and take care of ourselves, as it overall doesn't have as much of an effect on healthier people.
  • bflores247 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I agree, while yes it may still go down, this pandemic reminds us how bad things can get, we are lucky to brush with a not so deadly disease, yes people still die from it, but the mortality rate is exceedingly high, thanks to huge advancements in medical research and development, and, on the optimistic side of things, many good ideas and products came out of this, restaurants being able to deliver, seeing loved ones on a screen to be able to connect with them more easily, and widespread connectivity with everyone.
  • mcaamal on 08 Mar 21
     
    this was interesting because the situation was put into perspective. They say that is should be kinda normal around the summer and that is such a good new because that means senior year will be more normal. I was kinda hesitant about the vaccine but apparently it is really helping even though there are some people who still do get sick is has come down to less people.
  • jtaulborg103 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I thought this article was interesting because it helped me gain a better perspective of COVID-19. Even with vaccines coming out, the world will not be put back on its axis because of all the damage that´s been done. It will take a while for things to return normally. Even with the decreasing number of cases, there will still be people who get it. It will still spread around like any other virus. I knew it was obviously a bad problem but it really put it into perspective for me.
  • rosellyrosas on 15 Mar 21
     
    This article was very eye-opening. A lot of people think that the coronavirus will soon end, according to the article, it says that the coronavirus will be not be extinguished anytime soon. The University of Johns Hopkins says that people thinking the virus will end sounds like a fantasy and not a reality. The virus caused a lot of people harm and sadness. Many things were ruined by the virus and have opened a lot of people eye's to appreciate and value what they have. Having the vaccine it'll help us make the virus manageable, just like the flu.
  • gbrochu915 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I liked this article because it gave me a better view on how corona is and how long it will take for people and us to get back to our "old world" and how it compares to other viruses.
Bryan Pregon

More students got F's in first term of school year - The Washington Post - 21 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...r-are-a-f-grades-fair-pandemic

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 20
     
    I am hoping to get some GOOD discussion in this thread. As we approach the final 3 weeks of Semester 1, what have we learned. From your perspective, what should schools (including ours) do about GRADING during the pandemic?
  • ...21 more comments...
  • jessicasolorio on 07 Dec 20
     
    They should take into consideration how well the teacher is doing at helping students get feedback and help, some teachers are not doing their part when students ask for help. Both students and teachers have to be working hard to communicate effectively and if one falls out it could cause students to flop more
  • eoneal271 on 07 Dec 20
     
    Learning at home is not fun at all. Some teachers try and incorporate students at home, but then the students do not comply, but then some teachers don't even involve the students at home. It is extremely hard to stay focused at home when there are many distractions at home. I am not surprised at all by this statistic because we need to be in school. They need to shut down bars and restaurants before they even consider shutting down schools.
  • josephinelamb on 07 Dec 20
     
    Learning online is much more difficult than in person. It's harder to stay focused. It's harder to keep up when most teachers focus only on the students who are in the classroom. Although I still think we should continue to keep A-F grades because some colleges aren't accepting pass/fail, and pass/fail affects your GPA.
  • olijohnson on 07 Dec 20
     
    I dont think we should change the A-F grading system, but I do think we should change either the curriculum or be more understanding and lax on the grading scale
  • scarney230 on 07 Dec 20
     
    i dont think we should change the a-f grades but i do think that we should change how are curriculum is or we should start being more flexible both teacher and students towards assignments i think we should be more open because this is all knew to us
  • trinitytallman on 07 Dec 20
     
    I have noticed that online school is much more difficult than in person. Its hard to stay motivated and get all of your work get done. I feel like the teachers should try to include the online students a little bit more than they do. It will help keep everyone engaged and learning the things that they need too. I think there should still be an A-F format but maybe make it a little bit easier to take some stress of of students.
  • josephfeser on 07 Dec 20
     
    I think that the way that grades are being made is becoming more unfair, The way people get grades is based off of assignments instead of actually knowing the stuff, it is based on memorizing instead of learning. There shouldn't be an A-F, there should be a pass or fail based on knowledge, not assignments.
  • mmailey052 on 07 Dec 20
     
    I think that doing work online is much harder than in person because I think I lose motivation to really do anything because some teachers feel like we are not really there and ignore us. I think we should still have A-F's because they are good but I wish the grades were curved a little because of these hard times.
  • Michael Keller on 07 Dec 20
     
    Online school has its setbacks, but I feel like it's manageable. School has been relatively the same despite the setbacks, and I appreciate our teachers not giving us an overabundance of work to do. And the work they do give us helps with class. I feared that this year would be hard because everyone said the junior year is the hardest, but this has been like any other year.
  • laurenhansen168 on 07 Dec 20
     
    I agree, with Michael, I thought this year was going to be really hard too, but I think the teachers have done a good job helping students when they need it, and have layed off on homework. Although it is hard to do online work, it is managable like Michael said.
  • xxchrysxx on 07 Dec 20
     
    I believe in our grading system, but for the pandemic there need to be some changes. This year has been a crazy rollercoaster and because of that, I think we need to slow down and take a step back. The school needs to lighten up on assignments and focus more on if everyone is understanding the material.
  • cmacias539 on 08 Dec 20
     
    I never have F's but this year was my first year failing a class and I feel like online school is definitely one reason why, I don't even know what I'm doing in that class tbh. some teachers just don't do good enough to help us learn at home.
  • jcollins438 on 14 Dec 20
     
    I think that this year just hasn't been great for school and I hope that colleges understand this year and the grades that come along with it.
  • hharker376 on 14 Dec 20
     
    I have learned that online school can be quite difficult for some people. The grading system should at least be altered to help students keep up.
  • jcooley186 on 14 Dec 20
     
    I definitely think that this year has been hard, especially with school and the stress of being virtual. But I think teachers have done a really good job of trying to help students and try to be interactive with the online students (In my case at least,). We should keep our grading system, and maybe we could improve on being more flexible with grading.
  • bayliegirres on 14 Dec 20
     
    I think that we should still have A-Fs. I do think that because of the pandemic there should be some changes, but I think that we need to have A-Fs especially for the kids who worked hard to get good grades it wouldn't be fair to them for trying hard and not getting credit.
  • margaretgrover on 05 Jan 21
     
    I think that having A-Fs are still a good idea, but we need to be adaptable in what it means to earn these grades. Stress and anxiety have been really hard this year and it wears on not only students but teachers as well. Teachers have been really trying to help their students and we should appreciate that.
  • lennxbrown on 11 Jan 21
     
    I think we should still have A-Fs. The pandemic doesn't need to change every aspect of our life. Personally, I had no issue learning at home and most people are simply using it as an excuse to slack off.
  • kaeleem on 11 Jan 21
     
    Its harder for students to ask questions when online making it harder to understand questions
  • carmellahargens on 13 Jan 21
     
    i think that we should continue with the A-F grading scale. the pandemic doesn't really give you a whole lot of excuses. i mean i had some trouble doing some assignments because it was a little bit harder to do things at home without being able to freely ask questions
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I think that we should still have A-Fs still. Teachers just need to be more considerate of things going on at home for students and how much students are struggling this year.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    I agree with tkoesters274 teachers should take into consideration each student and what they are juggling at home and with schoolwork on top of everything and 7 classes that assign homework it gets hard to keep up especially with sports after school. I think we should keep the A-F scale because it's easy and everyone is used to it so don't fix what isn't broken.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    I think having more lenience for kids this year is necessary. Many have to work and help out their families. Many family members have died a depression is very serious and crushing.
ataylor074

Volunteers provide oxygen as India's COVID-19 cases near 20 million | Reuters - 16 views

www.reuters.com/...n-peak-seen-nearing-2021-05-03

shared by ataylor074 on 03 May 21 - No Cached
  • ataylor074 on 03 May 21
     
    Do you guys think they should go into a lockdown? Do you think we should join the UK in sending aid to them?
  • ...14 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 03 May 21
     
    I think India should seriously considering going into a lock down, even for a few days or weeks. That way it can contain the spread of the virus outbreak. Last year, we learned about the dangers of not containing this virus. I also think the U.S. should join the UK in helping them. I know our country has it's own problems, but if we can -- even just a little bit -- we should help others in the world during these tough times.
  • hannahliwai on 03 May 21
     
    i think that india should go into lockdown. cases are rising and if they don't quarantine, it will continue to rise
  • kredding147 on 03 May 21
     
    They should consider a lockdown. So many people are getting sick, it's the best way to go. If they don't, who knows what could happen?
  • vperez191 on 04 May 21
     
    they should definitely go on lockdown because it will just get worse and worse if they do not do anything right now when they should.
  • rosellyrosas on 05 May 21
     
    I strongly feel that India should go on a breathly lockdown. The virus could spread more than it already is. With caution and responsibility, I feel like the numbers would go down by a lot. Now that covid has been going on for more than a year, we should think and do more research of how we should help others.
  • jdogan on 05 May 21
     
    I think for a country like India it's more complicated then just going into a lockdown. They have a population much higher than countries that have been able to successfully have lockdowns which makes it inherently much harder. On top of this India socioeconomic makeup make up is substantially poorer than countries that have had lockdowns as well. for a lot of India's population a lockdown just isn't viable, and you can see this in what happened in America as well where poorer people worked through lockdowns and because of this in poorer areas COVID spread easily. However this is a large portion of India's population, so this is an area where America needs to start exporting our extra vaccines since we have already had major success in our vaccine roll out and this is a grave situation
  • jtaulborg103 on 10 May 21
     
    I think India needs to go on a heavy lockdown. It's important that they take a lot of precautions because the virus could spread more than it already is and prevent another world lockdown from happening and keep other people safe. It would also help their numbers go down and to keep the threat of it spreading contained.
  • vperez191 on 11 May 21
     
    India should go on lockdown right now when they can before it gets even worse for the people/
  • abbidominguez on 14 May 21
     
    With the severity of COVID in India, I think they need to come up with a strategic plan to control the virus. Whether that means a heavy lockdown or something else it's important they do something now before it gets even worse. They are in a terrible place right now with the amount of COVID cases and I don't think anyone wants to know what it will be like if it continues to get any worse.
  • sydneykolln on 21 May 21
     
    India definitely needs a lockdown right now. With COVID cases rising so drastically, this is the best possible thing for them to do to hopefully slow the spread of the virus.
  • masonmascarenas on 24 May 21
     
    Understandably the severity of COVID-19 is extremely high, but India is also a third world country that relies heavily on their work force to bring in any kind of revenue for their government. In a country like India the governments respect for the residents is slim so while they should go into lock down I don't believe they will.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    They definitley need a lockdown as soon as possible. That could be a huge mess for India if covid isn't solved. I do think the US could provide aid I don't see why we couldn't?
  • allisonwalker on 24 May 21
     
    They should go on lockdown, it'd benefit them so things don't get worse. They are suffering and need as much help as possible so we should help them.
  • nick_rice on 24 May 21
     
    I do believe they need to go into lockdown very soon so they can try to help keep themselves safe.
  • eballenger on 24 May 21
     
    I think they should go into lockdown to make sure everyone is safe.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think they should go to lockdown since covid is very bad there.
qanderson136

The liberal Dr. Seuss probably would have thought 'cancel culture' was bunk - Chicago Tribune - 25 views

www.chicagotribune.com/...sebcxhnjhhgrhajwmtq-story.html

shared by qanderson136 on 08 Mar 21 - No Cached
qanderson136 liked it
  • qanderson136 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think that the Dr. Seuss banning in schools was uncalled for because the pictures in his books from the 1950s were just the way it was back then and I do not believe he went out to be racist. Does anyone else have any opinions?
  • ...16 more comments...
  • gbrochu915 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that they should be banning Dr. Seuss in schools and I do not think that he came out to be racist with his books. when he started wringing that was how people did and things were back then and today's society is so sensitive to everything. so many kids grew reading his books that I just think it is wrong.
  • lhunter952 on 08 Mar 21
     
    Dr. Suess being canceled is just going too far. He wrote children's books in the 1950s, back then things like pictures in a children's book were not viewed as something that could be racist and I believe that that is not what he intended at all. These books were made for the entertainment of children.
  • laceyperry067 on 09 Mar 21
     
    I don't feel Dr. Seuss books were published to spread hate on certain races. I could be wrong but if it was, they would be canceled far before now. I think these books should not be banned due to the fact, if they were racist, we could learn from the past. We all know the 1950s had minstrel shows which promoted things such as black face. We do not ban those videos or other past history evidence because we learn from those things. It's all history and we can not change what happened. All we can do is learn to be better.
  • nadialove on 09 Mar 21
     
    I agree with laceyperry067 I don't believe that there was ill intent behind the books it was just what was "acceptable" at the time. I don't think it would be right the erase the work of a good writer, but as a person of color we should neither condone nor promote those kinds of images in children's books. Books like this, with dated ideas, should be handled differently in order to teach right from wrong. We have to learn from the ugly truth in order to grow and move past it.
  • redrose99875 on 09 Mar 21
     
    I think it's utterly ridiculous that they're banning his books! Maybe he was racist, maybe he wasn't. But he wouldn't put that kind of thing in a children's book!
  • sydneykolln on 13 Mar 21
     
    I grew up reading Dr. Seuss books and enjoyed reading them. It's insane to think that they are now being canceled. Granted, I feel like all we can do is move past this and learn from it. However, I do not think that erasing his literature is a good idea.
  • zeaksorensen on 15 Mar 21
     
    it feels strange that they are not going to be sold
  • brandonwch on 15 Mar 21
     
    A few things. First off, as a response to Zeak as far as my knowledge is concerned, the books are still going to be sold. (Unless a business decides not to sell them.) What's happened is that they aren't going to be printed anymore, new copies aren't going to be made. Second, as a general thing does everyone actually know the books that aren't being printed? None of them are particularly famous, except for maybe "And to Think that I saw it on Mulberry Street." As well, it's not some outside force making the Seuss estate stop publishing these books, they willingly decided to do so. No-one is being "Cancelled," here. As well, it's things like this (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/05/books/03DRSEUSS5/merlin_184489674_86a1b9c7-d76d-45d0-b52c-0976d003a730-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg) (https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/If-I-Ran-the-Zoo.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=400) that are the reasons the books are being pulled from shelves, which have fairly racist and stereotyped depictions of Chinese people.
  • mcaamal on 15 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that if dr seuss was that liberal he wouldn't have intentionally tried to portray them badly, i feel like a lot of people are taking a lot of things to far they just try to nick pick everything out to find something wrong with someone and come after to just to great drama.
  • nick_rice on 22 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that his books should be banned because his books were more of its time. The books were for children to read and enjoy not for them to read and be racist.
  • allisonwalker on 22 Mar 21
     
    I don't think that we should cancel Dr.Suess. His books were fine before and then suddenly everyone hates them? If you are offended by his books for some reason, then just don't read them, it's as simple as that. You shouldn't go as far as banning them.
  • joeypo10 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think its weird to stop producing a kids picture book because kids really don't take books that deeply. Plus at such a young age the kids don't understand much of today's society so it makes no sense to stop producing books that were made in the 50's.
  • hannahliwai on 29 Mar 21
     
    i think cancel culture is absurd. yes, there are offensive things everywhere, but cancelling them won't rid the world of it. i think it's good that people are recognizing certain things as... insulting, but banning childrens' books?
  • samhovey on 29 Mar 21
     
    Children are very impressionable at a young age, and supplying them with books with such messages may put racial stereotypes into their heads.
  • eballenger on 29 Mar 21
     
    I read these books as a kid and it didn't influence me to believe stereotypes, I just read them for fun like a little kid would and it had no effect on my future.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I think that children shouldn't be reading things that may affect their opinions on people, which I understand how these books potentially could. However, I was not negatively affected by any of these books and can also see how people may just see them as children's books. I see other people commenting about how things were different in the 1950s and that is why it should be allowed, but things are different now. We don't need racist children's books from the past, and if that's Dr. Suess then I feel like he was banned for a good reason.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    When I was a kid I used to love Dr. Seuss's books and as a kid, you don't think about the so-called "racist" part of the books kids just see bright colors and fun characters. I think canceling Dr. Seuss's books was uncalled for and kind of ridiculous.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    I actually don't really care. The books that they removed were like 5.
Bryan Pregon

Germany coronavirus: Fans turn out for Tim Bendzko concert -- but don't worry it's for science | CNN Travel - 17 views

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 23 Aug 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Sep 20
     
    Would you volunteer to be part of a study like this? Why or why not?
  • ...18 more comments...
  • lennxbrown on 03 Sep 20
     
    If I didn't have sports to play and could watch an artist I enjoy for free I would participate in a study like this. The reason being I'm healthy and all of my friends who have gotten the virus said it felt like a cold. (I know this isn't the case for all people of course)
  • josephinelamb on 03 Sep 20
     
    Yes, because i'm healthy and have a small chance of dying from the corona virus.
  • mdunlop359 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I think I would try and avoid an experiment like this. Don't get me wrong, it sounds interesting and enjoyable but even if I could listen to a band I enjoy, there is always going to be a looming fear of me getting the virus. I wouldn't be able to focus on the music.
  • jcooley186 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I don't think I would consider being apart of experiments like this, mainly because I don't want to get it and maybe spread it to others who didn't even attend it, like my family or friends. It would just make me nervous, to be honest.
  • makosa23 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I wouldn't try. because I don't wanna get Corona. or I don't wanna spread to people.
  • tbohls135 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would volunteer because it's a free concert and it would help bring back more live events that would be safer and help us get back to normality plus I'm a healthy kid so I'm low risk.
  • bayliegirres on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would volunteer because its a free concert and I am very healthy and if I were to get it I would most likely recover from it and be fine.
  • saralong057 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would definitely volunteer to be apart of this study. I think we need to try and gain some normalcy back into our lives. Another reason I'd try this is because I'm very healthy and haven't been exposed to anything. With this study underway, we as people could see if this could be an effective way to get back to our lives
  • xxchrysxx on 03 Sep 20
     
    I wouldn't volunteer because yes its a free concert, and yes I'm healthy so I'm at low risk but, I have lots a family members who are at high risk. Even if I'm fine and get it, those who are around me and are at high risk might not be in the long run. I rather stay safe for others.
  • baileyherrera123 on 03 Sep 20
     
    Ok so, this is like a 50/50 no I don't want corona but if I can help humanity to figure out more about this virus then i would do it hands down no questions asked.
  • laurenhansen168 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would volunteer to do this study because I think it would be a cool opportunity to see where you can get COVID and where it is mostly at. I would absolutely volunteer just for the experience and to see what is around me and to see if we could actually use something other than masks.
  • livmorrow on 03 Sep 20
     
    I think I would definitely participate in this study because I think society needs to try to get back to normalcy and try to figure out how to go back to times before covid.
  • hannahdaviss on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would volunteer because I'm all for trying to get things back to normal. I think that corona has changed our lives enough, and I don't think we should have to live in fear of going in public without a mask.
  • tylerhar on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would not volunteer because its dangerous enough trusting some masks material to protect you from spreading or receiving the virus. As nice as a free concert would sound, it would be too risky to make it as a test. If they used something other than humans (or easier to maintain animals) for testing, it could make tests less worrisome when post-results are gathered.
  • carmellahargens on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would do it because I know that I can't die from the virus, so I think it would be cool to find out how quickly it actually spreads and how many people are really effected by it
  • auggieneff on 03 Sep 20
     
    I would volunteer because i think it would be fun to go to a concert also it would help get more information on covid and how to deal with it.
  • aramirez036 on 04 Sep 20
     
    I would not participate in this experiment because I would not put myself in a situation where I'm most susceptible to the potentially deadly virus.
  • emilysmith200 on 09 Sep 20
     
    I would participate in this experiment because I could have fun while giving people more information about COVID 19.
  • stephanie2003 on 14 Sep 20
     
    I would not put myself in this situation to do this while still a deadly sickness. I would not put myself in this if the risk is to die
  • margaretgrover on 21 Sep 20
     
    I would never do a study like this because I am at higher risk to get COVID and so are the people I live with, I wouldn't want to put them at risk for a concert I'm probably not going to remember in a few months.
Natalie Wilson

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

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

shared by Natalie Wilson on 18 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • patrick boian on 23 Jan 13
     
    he turned the wheel to hit him so he ment to injure him so it was a hate crime
  • ...15 more comments...
  • mdollen288 on 24 Jan 13
     
    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'
  • Melissa Christensen on 24 Jan 13
     
    This story seems to belittle the idea of equality and shows that racism will continue and equality might never happen. Really sad
  • garrett lee on 25 Jan 13
     
    what is the world coming to
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 04 Feb 13
     
    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.
  • nelsontad on 06 Mar 13
     
    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
  • Ericka Davis on 06 Mar 13
     
    This is so horrible!! They do it for entertainment and its just wrong. Some people need serious help and put in an institution..
  • Tori Caddell on 06 Mar 13
     
    Racism is not a joke, and for everyone living in a "free" country, I don't believe anyone really feels that way.
  • Carlos Villarreal on 06 Mar 13
     
    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.
  • courtney wilson on 06 Mar 13
     
    that just racist!!!! some people need serious help or be locked up in an insitution or something!!!!!
  • Morgan Ronfeldt on 06 Mar 13
     
    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.
  • Amanda Ringberg on 06 Mar 13
     
    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.
  • Chris Lavy on 06 Mar 13
     
    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.
  • cbonar311 on 06 Mar 13
     
    That is really cruel and racism is not right
  • Ericka Davis on 08 Mar 13
     
    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.
  • Jamie Cash on 15 Mar 13
     
    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.
  • joshpowell on 15 Mar 13
     
    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.
  • Austin Parrott on 20 Mar 13
     
    it was a hate crime and an intention to hit the guy
Mallory Huggins

Oops, I left my sexual orientation at home - 5 views

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

shared by Mallory Huggins on 19 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 22 Oct 12
     
    I think that is crazy, why people think that some people would choose to be tortured everyday is beyond me. I mean come on. I think this issue should just resolve like now, yes I understand that in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. But God made you who you are. People have to understand that, obviously there is a plan, it just hasn't showed itself to everyone yet. Being Homosexual is a life, if a Heterosexual stepped into a Homosexual's life for one day they would understand that they go through so much crap constantly. I think if it was just passed as a law people would forget about it. And everything in the world would be a lot less hectic. P.S.... I love the translation at the bottom!! That is hilarious!! :D
  • Jenny Ord on 23 Oct 12
     
    my whole view on this is that it is ridiculous. gay people should get their rights already.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    In all reality..... If Religion is your reason to say, "Being gay is not okay," then you really need to know your history. First, Christmas, if I recall the documentary that I watched not to long ago correctly, was a time for grown men to beat there wives, and go out and have "gay sex" with each other? So, if you denounce gay marriage because of Catholicism, or Christianity, you just denounced Christmas. Second, for those of you who are Hindustan, you have a celebrated holiday that is for 2 guys, and 1 girl, to "get it on." It's called Karma Sutra. Yeah, religion should not be allowed to interfere in America's choice to permit/deny gay marriage, and not just for those 2 reasons. (Those reasons being that the religions allow it themselves, yet say it is not okay.) Let's just read out constitution. We've all heard, "Freedom of Religion," before, right? Well, right there, religion should not be allowed to found a reason as to deny gay relationships. To add, let us look at the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness includes marriage correct? If so, define marriage Religion definition: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Actual definition: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Just by out constitutional freedoms, and foundations, most of it points in the direction of gay marriage should be legal, which Jenny, is why I agree with you. As for being gay being something you can fix, don't think so. I don't see people changing there skin color. (Except Micheal Jackson, but we all still know that he was not as light-toned as that.) Do you see people choosing there eye color? Either that is one expensive (or failed) surgery, or it does not happen. I don't think you are capable of changing the way someone is born, (unless it changes your physical appearance, which does not change you
casandrabristow

Students Suspended for Clothing Displaying Confederate Flag - 10 views

abcnews.go.com/...ying-confederate-flag-33828212

shared by casandrabristow on 17 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • casandrabristow on 17 Sep 15
     
    About 20 students at a Virginia high school received a one-day suspension for wearing clothing displaying the Confederate flag. Montgomery County Public Schools spokeswoman Brenda Drake says the clothing violated Christiansburg High School's dress code. Drake tells WSLS-TV ( http://bit.ly/1NFFsrk ) that the students refused to comply with the dress code after they arrived at the school Thursday.
  • ...6 more comments...
  • gillyhyde on 17 Sep 15
     
    It's good that they were suspended, the confederate flag is banned for a reason. The confederate flag represents racism, and it's very sad that there are still people displaying it, especially young people like high schoolers because they're the ones who are going to make an impact on and represent our generation.
  • sophiataylor001 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I believe that they should have been forced to change clothes. The confederates were fighting for the right to keep their slaves. While there may have been an array of reasons, such as the economy, that the confederates wanted to keep their slaves, it is morally wrong to keep people as such. While pride can be good, origins can be bad. I don't think having an origin that completely missed the enlightenment of the rest of the world is necessarily something to be proud of. Have southern pride, but find a symbol that doesn't stand for racism.
  • baddison753 on 24 Sep 15
     
    I think that they should have been suspended not because of their beliefs but because what they wore was against the dress code and they refused to change.
  • bharold850 on 24 Sep 15
     
    I believe this is justified completely. The confederate flag is a symbol of racism and for a group of students to collectively wear clothing that represents that is sickening. Not only that but they violated the school dress code and then refused to comply should be suspended. These "beliefs" they have by wearing the confederate flag promote racism, the whole thing gives off a KKK feel.
  • ksmith936 on 24 Sep 15
     
    I believe like Brook has said the confederate flag is definitely a symbol of racism and is very offensive to many people. They should have been suspended because they were not following the code of conduct and refused to remove the shirts, let alone the meaning behind the confederate flag.
  • ryanlegg on 29 Sep 15
     
    I believe that this was fair on all accounts, Because of how the symbols relate to certain parts of the past that were harmful to our country
  • austindueling1 on 29 Sep 15
     
    I think that they should be able to wear clothes that have that it shouldn't matter they are showing that they have pride in were they came from the confederate flag shouldn't be taking away. My favorite TV show the Dukes of Hazard won't be aired on TV anymore because of people throwing a fit about it and the dukes have it because the have pride in were they live/came from. Yeah I know there's racism under the flag but people say they want to move on but get rid of the flag. If the have pride that's why they were the flag not to be racist then the should be able to were the flag
  • Bryan Pregon on 29 Sep 15
     
    It is great to see so many comments on this case, we will be discussing this specifically in regards to our First Amendment rights together in class. Food for thought might be to consider what a symbol might represent to one group can be very different for another (think Nazi swastika and it's origin). I especially agree with Sophia who asks whether using a symbol so closely tied with racism begs the question of what aspects of Southern pride you are showing you are proud of?
Jeremy Vogel

Virginia deputy fights his firing over a Facebook 'like' - 3 views

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

Facebook CNN Politics

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 10 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 10 Sep 12
     
    A Virginia sheriff's deputy has been fired for liking his boss's political opponent -- on Facebook.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Katelyn Owen on 10 Sep 12
     
    I think that facebook is becoming a problem. Its beginning to take over peoples lives and now its affecting peoples jobs just because of liking something your boss doesn't approve of. Something needs to change about that.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    That judge is wrong. Freedom of expression is allowed to be shown through a political campaign, and in no way should he be fired because he is stating an opinion on facebook, something that is protected in our first amendment.
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    This case is complicated because working as a deputy is a government job, but to me this case is more about work law than freedom of speech. Here an excerpt of an article on the Iowa Dept of Labor Q/A page: Q. Can my employer fire me without a reason? A. Yes. Iowa is an "employment-at-will" state, meaning that an employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. You may have grounds for legal action if the employer fires you: 1. based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability; 2. for certain "whistle blower" actions such as filing OSHA complaints. 3. contrary to an applicable employment contract; 4. for attempting to comply with applicable government regulations, such as health codes in restaurants This case is in Virginia (not sure about their laws) but in Iowa I feel like the deputy would be out of a job.
  • Jaacob Tatta on 18 Sep 12
     
    A person has the right to like whoever they want on Facebook.
  • Jaidlyn Bookout on 18 Sep 12
     
    I feel like the deputy should be able to "like" whatever he wants, on facebook or not. I don't think it is right for him to be fired just for liking it.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 60 of 961 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page