Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

I can't believe they say were too young to understand. Just because were in high school we too young. its not right.

I am proud of Emily for standing up for what she wanted. Not many people would be brave enough to do something like that..

i think that its really brave of emily to stand up for what she wants and thinks that is the best. Not a lot of people would do it. But she is standing up for others and her opinion.

I understand where he is coming from saying high schoolers are too young to understand this. This topic is all about money, where it is coming from, how much money is needed, how much they will get from it. We do not know what goes on behind the scenes of this deals. Maybe instead of saying we are too young he should of said we are uninformed.

I like what Brice said, "we are just uninformed."

I hate to say it but i have this intense urge to slap City Council member Matt Walsh...what because we are young we automatically don't understand? More like we have more on our minds then politics and gaining support by being popular with business owners.

we have the right to say what we need to say. People have the right to say that they should not be in a public place or anywhere.

South Carolina has the electric chair and now a firing squad as their execution methods. It's absurd that the firing squad passed and that South Carolina is now the fourth state to allow this. Personally, I don't believe that there should be any execution methods and this just seems completely crazy to me that a firing squad is now one.

I find it kind of funny they would use a firing squad. It is a waste of money and a lot more extra work and time spent on worthless people. I believe executions for those kinds of people should be quick, easy, and cheap. Firing squads just seem ridiculous especially since it's not like they are being attacked and need to use multiple people for one person.

I don't understand why they would choose a firing squad of all things. I feel like there are more humane ways to execute someone but I suppose some people may want to go out with a bang.

I don't understand why this is even a thing. No one should be sentenced to death and if they were sentenced to death, it should be a humane way, not a firing squad or electric chair.

This is just stupid. This would be such a painful and awful way to go, even if you did something bad enough to get sentenced to death. Imagine what these people's families would be thinking, watching their son or daughter getting shot to death.

I don't understand why South Carolina thinks this should be aloud. Granted the death would happen anyway but having people line up and shoot people just seems inhumane and unnecessary.

I personally don't understand how they came to the decision that this was smart or found a way to justify it. I don't think that it is something that is going to be used in other states...hopefully. I think that this should be intervened by the national government considering how inhumane the idea is.

I agree with Joey, this seems like a recreational activity that fire squads would enjoy participating in, rather than an act of justice.

I think this is a pretty cruel punishment even for large criminals and seems like its more for the firing squad than it is about justice.

Having a firing squad as an execution method is ridiculous. It's a cruel and inhumane punishment that shouldn't be used, and the fact that four states have it listed as an execution method is disturbing.

I think that there should be a death penalty in cases where the criminal is too dangerous to be kept in captivity but a firing squad is an insane method. Not only is it a waste of money, time, and effort but do they really need a full firing squad for one person? That just makes no sense and seems nothing but cruel and disturbing.

I disagree with this they should not be adding new way of execution. This a cruel way to punish people and it should not be allowed. There are other way to punish people other than getting violent.

I think a firing squad is very extreme. I think the death penalty in general is very extreme. I can't believe South Carolina is the 4th state to allow this as well. There are definitely other ways to go about this than a firing squad or a death penalty at all.

I don't believe as we are such an advanced society that we should resort back to such a harsh capital punishment.

I can't see a death sentence not being a cruel punishment let alone the electric chair as the method, but South Carolina seeking to go further by adding the firing squad is even worse the fact that anyone would be convinced this is acceptable is astounding to me and shows the disconnect people have from the people around them

I really hope they get more injections, so the executions can be more humane again

Hopefully, this new president will give America a chance to turn over a new leaf and repair the damages that had been previously done.

Hopefully he make us wear mask everyday then corona is gonna over.

I think a lot of people are going to struggle with the price inflation and it's going to be a little rocky.

I'm hoping that we'll be able to see more progress and actions towards covid, climate change, and more from this new president.

I personally was hoping for Biden to win, but after hearing some things and doing more research it's unclear. No one is perfect, but I can say all we can do is hope for the best. I just hope for my generation he will help us in the long run for our future.

I agree with Michael, that Kamala Harris is going to take over for Biden. I also think that raising taxes for the people who make over $400,000 a year is not fair.

i am glad that biden is going to broadened health care coverage and student loan forgiveness i think this will help many poeple

I think health care is going to help many people, but the fact that people that make a certain amount of money, have to pay higher taxes, is not fair.

I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

without twinkies what are we sopose to look forward to after working out

Wow this is crazy! I would quit!

Yeah it sounds crazy!

protesting is a legal rght given to any united states citizen as long as they do it legally

I agree partially with what the workers are striking for because Walmart is a crazy place every single day, especially around the holiday season. However, I do not think they need to demand better pay or more stable hours. Their average pay is 5 whole dollars above federal minimum wage, and there are plenty of people out there who work a different job with a lot more hours at irregular times for minimum wage and no benefits. Why should Walmart be any different? I feel as if they are striking for something they will not get.

re:patrick -- perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but outside of abstinence what "other methods of not getting pregnant" are there besides medical birth control options? Like other articles posted here, I was as interested in reading many of the comments on the NYTimes site after the article, there were very compelling arguments on each side. I found myself siding with many who said that employers should not get the choice to opt out of providing this coverage. This was one such post: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. Does anyone believe for one second that we would be debating whether a Jehovah's Witness-owned company should cover blood transfusions for its employees? I seriously doubt it--which means that the debate we are having is not actually about religious freedom at all. It's about whether contraception is an essential part of women's health care, just like blood transfusions."

i agree with Patrick if women don't wont to get pregnant they should stay to the precautionary treatments to not become pregnant

That's the risk of doing she lived on the edge and she fell off

Something that is legal so you can get a high, it almosted costed her life and the worst thing is she wont ever be the same.

I think that's a perfect example as to why they shouldn't legalize it, not the opposite.

She may not of known what would've happened to her if she smoked the fake marijuana but, she did make a choice into smoking it knowing that it might not of been a good thing to her. Sure it's bad that she had seizures and became paralyzed. But, it was fake it wasn't the real thing maybe due to the chemicals in the drug triggered the seizures and other symptoms.

I think that the fact that real marijuana is illegal while "fake" marijuana remains legal, is ridiculous. I think the fact that Marijuana being illegal is ridiculous in itself. If we can legalize alcohol, why not Marijuana? I can understand that there is no immediate test to see if one is high or not while there is for alcohol, but that is a minor step in the road. Why not take it, set an age restriction on it, then tax the poop out of it? Make some money while legalizing something that has no reason to not be legal and will continue to be used anyway.

I think this proves that we should just go with the lesser evil and legalize it. Make it available at a certain age, yeah minors will be able to get a hold of it like they do with cigarettes and alcohol, but clearly marijuana is much safer than the legal "fake" stuff. It poses no harm to the user other than the fear of getting possession charges.

This information should be spread so people know the effect that it can have on people if they don't know what is in it. They need to learn some of the effects of it before doing it. She chose to smoke it not knowing the effects of it and she won't ever be the same because of it. This story is a good example of why you need to be educated about what you are doing.

That should prove why it would be wrong to legalize it, especially since a lot of young users don't know the side effects it can cause not just to themselves but to their loved ones as well.

Well it was her choice, Kids only do it to be against "the man" if they legalized thaat itd be a few days of people smoking on every corner then everyone would get tired of it. There will always be substance abuse.

Obviously fake and legal marijuana creates more problems than illegal marijuana does. If marijuana were to be legalized these problems wouldn't occur due to the fact that people wouldn't get the fake kind. Even tho marijuana does cause problems, it's not to that intensity where you have multiple strokes and your brain is half or three fourths dead.

She should have known more about it before she did it