Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

See, how does gay marriage affect straight marriage? It has obviously been like this for quite a while.. Iowa has not Blown up or anything because of it. It is obviously a control issue. I still don't understand why it is SO important to get rid of gay marriage.

re: Alex B - I think eating broccoli is 'disgusting' but I don't know that the government has any right to ban it. America is split 50/50 on this issue. I would welcome more people to give some opinions on this thread. I am interested to hear what are some of the reasons for differences in beliefs (rather than just personal preference) (maybe discussing rights and obligations of citizens/government)

The battle on Gay Marriage isn't one of "morals" or "protecting the foundation of marriage". This is an argument about religious ideals (Which shouldn't be expressed in our country that prides itself on having a separation of church and state) and Insurance rates. I honestly believe that keeping away rights like this is is prejudice and is in the same ball park as racial segregation. Alex: Then don't look.

i believe that it should be only men and women that can get married. thats how it was when my grandparents grew up and event my parents and thats the way i think it should stay. im not trying to be rude to any gay man or women its just my thoughts that men should marry women and women should marry men not marrying the same sex.

It's legal to marry your cousin in 16 states but you can't marry somebody the same gender as you? Gay marriage has been going on for such a long time now, what issues has it caused? Did wanting to marry another man/woman cause World War 1? There are incestual relations in religious writing, but wanting to marry someone the same gender as you is a sin? I find that disgusting, they have no right to ban love. Peace.

I could careless if you married the same gender as long as that person makes you happy then why does it even matter.

im sorry, somebody got on my thing and put that. i didnt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that the wall could be a possible way to stop a part of illegal immigration but the problem with that is how expensive it would be and also most immigrants come here on planes not across the border.

It was inappropriate for Ted Cruz to make that joke.

I think this is funny because i dont like most of Donald trumps "ideas". and id probably run him over also.

I think that Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and almost every republican candidate this year has made a mockery of the Republican party. I mean do these candidates think?

I understand why Trump wants to build a wall but why does he expect Mexico to pay for it when it's clear they don't want the wall to be built in the first place.

Why does he think building a wall is going to accomplish anything? If they are determined to get the US than it will happen whether we want it or not. We just have to find a way to know if they are here to harm us or are at peace with us and just want a better life.

I agree with Kim ^ the wall isn't going to do anything because if someone wants to come to America they're going to anyways

Mexico shouldn't have to help pay for the wall to be built. Donald Trump wants the wall to be built so I think that he should pay for it.

I agree with Mallori and Kim. Its his ideas to keep the Mexicans out of the U.S. Why would he even think their president would help build it?

I get what Trump is doing, he does not what people to just come over to America from Mexico but making them pay, I don't think that will happen. The people in Mexico will find other whys to get in still, we just have to make hard for them to get in just like Canada is hard to get in.

I think trump's idea of having a wall built is dumb because people from mexico will still try to get over that wall. And its not fail to all the people who got deported and there's still people here living illegally. I mean they aren't really doing anything wrong, or hurting anybody.

I understand that Mexico should help pay for the wall it wants and proposes to do President Trump because that way it would help a lot in the control of immigrant people

i agree with mallori, i dont think the wall will stop much

Mexico's president has every right to deny this wall, and Trump insisting that he pay for something against his wants is absurd.

If you are building a fence for your house, does your neighbor pay it? I don't think so and neither should Mexico. If he wants a wall so badly, then he can take it out of the taxes of all the people who voted for him in the first place.

I agree with Ayin, Trump can't force Mexico to pay for something he wants.

link seems broken... try this http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/

I think its a good law, people should be able to know who you are. If you really wanna protest, you shouldn't care.

I believe that if you truly believe in the cause, then you should have to face the consequences, even if that means losing your job or your reputation and status.

This bill makes sense. Public safety is at the forefront of this bill, if a protest gets violent or other harmful/unlawful acts occur the persons the are held responsible will be able to be identified. But looking at it from the other side, people might want to conceal their identity at protests, or the masks are part of their protest(example Anonymous). If this bill passes people will be made, if it doesn't pass other people will be mad. Who is the Canadian government ok will making mad?

This bill should be passed because if you're risking yourself by already being there, you should have to show your face. Also, if the situation ever turned violent, that person wouldn't get away with it because their face wasn't exposed so they could be identified.

I think that this bill should be passed because the police should have the right to identify anyone who is protesting. If you want to protest, protecting your identity shouldn't be a major concern because you would want people to know who you are, and what you are speaking out against.

I think if you are going to protest, you are there for a reason, that you strongly believe in, so you should not want to hide who you really are

It should be considered that this is a trade for security by means of liberty. Sacrificing freedom for a small degree of protection. If this bill passes, it could easily snowball to other things (this may be a bit of a reach) such as controlling what you can wear altogether just so that you can be identified at all times just in case you might be possibly considering intending to commit a crime.

As said in earlier comments, I think that if you want to protest IN PUBLIC then the public has the right to know who you are. If you want you can protest in your house and no one needs to know who you are. But out side of you cant hide from the public if your are going to stand outside with a big sign and yell out things in front of people.

I think this should be a bill that becomes a law.

I see it as your there or your protesting for a reason so why hide it. If your protesting you believe something is ether wrong or right so why hide your believes. If you don't want to be seen or noticed here's an easy answer don't go!

I think that you should be able to wear a mask, because if you're protesting something that you believe in, or don't believe in, than it is a personal matter and you should be able to conceal your identity from the public.

I like this gives everyone the right to be happy and finally we all get to stop fighting for this so hard.

Im happy people are fighting for this. i think everyone should be happy with who they are.

In my opinion, they shouldn't of shot her. I'm almost sure that the reason they had chosen to take this action is because they feared that she was trying to attack the white house. It's likely that if the thought that she might be targeting the government wasn't an assumption that had been made, she wouldn't of been shot. That represents inequality in our society, because had it been anyone else that seemed like a target, this person wouldn't of lost her life. Her car was already crashed, and no weapons were in her possession. Knowing that, how could she of been a threat to the public in any way?

She tried to run her car into the white house. She knew what she was doing. She knew she would end up in jail or in trouble at least. If your going to do something stupid, and try to endanger several people's lives over something you can't control, then whatever happens, happens.

I think she was using her vehicle as a weapon but I don't think that means that they needed to shoot her. I think she was crazy for having her kid in the car with her and they should have arrested her to then be able to question her for her actions now they'll never know.

They shouldn't have shot her. They probably did it to avoid more paper work and hassle. Always looking for a reason to kill people who defy the government. Plus she wasn't the only one in the car. Talk about devastating.

It was okay that she was shoot. Because what if she had a bomb. And she was a threat to national security that is why she was shoot

I think they shouldn't have shot her.Especially since her one year old daughter was in the vehicle and probably witnessed the horror of her mom being shot and killed in front of her.