Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items matching "Think" 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
15More

Texas files suit in federal court over Syrian refugees - CNNPolitics.com - 29 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15 - No Cached
agilbert921 liked it
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15
     
    "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a complaint in federal court against the United States, State Department and the International Rescue Committee, seeking a stay of federal plans to settle any Syrian refugees in his state."
  • ...12 more comments...
  • agilbert921 on 04 Dec 15
     
    Texas should let more refuges into their state because its not their decision, its the american goverenments
  • baddison758 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think we should help these refuges because we have procedures in our immigration process that, if done correctly, we will be protected against the very few ISIS terrorists that hide withing those refuges. Also it is a stand against ISIS if we continue letting them in because we will show that we are not afraid of them and fear is all terrorists have against the world.
  • ncasson324 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think since Texas wasn't informed that the refugees were coming, they have a reason to be mad. Suing may be a little extreme, but it is a huge worry if they are threats to the safety of the Texas people, especially since it was confirmed they cannot do accurate background checks on them
  • lcarman980 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that the US should be doing what we can to help but I don't think anymore refugees should be allowed into the country. We should not be held accountable for taking care of them. If our nation will be put in danger by possible terrorists posing as refugees, we shouldn't allow anymore. A lot of the refugees that have already come to America have been complaining because we aren't giving them more things. We gave them food, shelter and protection but they complain about not being given TVs. Why should they get free things if half of our nations populous is under poverty line and expected to fend for themselves? I completely understand that they need help but we should not have to put our country in harms way to do it. There is no way to know if they are terrorists or refugees so we shouldn't take the risk.
  • haveltherock on 04 Dec 15
     
    We should let them in but only with very high monitoring to track out the terrorists hiding in the crowds. It might be a evil way to do it but we will be able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks without just ignoring their please for help. (ZAC OLSON)
  • chowe892 on 04 Dec 15
     
    Texas should let them in but they should take certain steps to make sure that they are not terrorists. It isnt their choice to keep them out its the governments.
  • masoncutting on 04 Dec 15
     
    The American Government should let the state make their own decision. If the state doesn't want to help, then let it be.
  • molson922 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I really don't know what I think the government should do at this point. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I fear for our safety while I also fear for the refugees. I do strongly believe though that these refugees do need a place to go where they can be safe, but it's hard to know whose good or bad.
  • trocha340 on 04 Dec 15
     
    i wouldnt the refugees in because you dont know which ones are a threat i believe it would be to much of a risk
  • jwondercheck947 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that the way things are now, with the US not being able to individually make the decision whether or not refugees are allowed into a specific state, is the best for us right now because having one decision for the whole country is more organized and orderly than having every state with a different policy on refugees. Personally, I feel for the Syrian refugees because most of them are women and children. But at the same time, with the risk of letting terrorists in, it is a tough decision. If we did thorough background checks on every single person that came into the US from Syria then maybe I would think this would be okay. Because I don't think it's fair to stop women and children from living a good life here because there MAY be a terrorist among them.
  • rwilson761 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I believe that we shouldn't let just anyone in maybe do a background check before they enter our country just in case something is likely to happen, Not being stereotypical but with all the things that ISIS has done so far they could possibly plan something if we were to not accept any Syrians at all because we're "afraid".
  • garrettross420 on 04 Dec 15
     
    They do and they dont know whats all going down but they should let them in because its choice of the government to let the refuges in
  • tbonaparte on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that we should take refugees in because they're trying to get out of that environment and the U.S could be a lot of help to them, but I also think we should keep our eyes opened because we don't know who is a threat and who isn't. It's a tough decision to be honest.
  • natehathaway on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that it's up to the government and not the individual states to decide whether to let the immigrants in or not
30More

Shia LaBeouf Arrested After Allegedly Attacking 25-Year-Old During Anti-Trump Protest - 33 views

people.com/...hia-labeouf-handcuffed-protest
shared by xolson974 on 26 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • xolson974 on 26 Jan 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf was arrested in New York early Thursday during a protest against President Donald Trump after he allegedly attacked a 25-year-old man - and video of the entire incident was posted online. The 30-year-old actor was taken into custody around 12:30 a.m.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Matthew E on 26 Jan 17
     
    Not only did Shia have the courage to do this, but he kept going which was his mistake, and all outside the museum with his art in it. This could lead to multiple up riots, maybe even more violence. But Shia got off about scott free.
  • Deven Przybylski on 26 Jan 17
     
    If you don't know the background of Shia, you wouldn't understand why he went off like that. First off, the man he was yelling at was a neo nazi. He had said 1488 which is a reference to Hitler and the holocaust. Shia is Jewish, his name literally means praise god in Hebrew. Shia may have gone too far if it were just a common mistake, but when your ancestors have been killed in WW2, you're not going to be happy. He shouldn't have been arrested, the white supremacist should've for representing hate.
  • mwheeler21 on 30 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Deven the man was just picking a fight and he got exactly what he wanted, nothing against Shia.
  • agrosas on 30 Jan 17
     
    I think it was wrong for that person to say that to Shia LaBeouf, that guy just want to see how mad he would get, most did it on purpose.
  • jwells549 on 31 Jan 17
     
    I think that the guy got what he deserved. Maybe Shia shouldn't be so aggressive towards opposing sides of politics, like supporters, protesters, ect, but you can't fix or control somebody else's behavior and beliefs. So, since the man was pushing Shia's rage on and on, Shia snapped, and I believe the man got what he deserved.
  • delaniehubbard on 07 Feb 17
     
    Everyone has there opinions and beliefs obviously and everyone is not going to get along, when you act out and hurt people for expressing there opinions you cant expect to not get punished. Especially when your around lots of people, you can't expect to not do or say anything.
  • sydney matheny on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia could've used less violence but in a way I don't blame him because the man was saying things that were really bad and offended shia.
  • lauren rambo on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven and Sydney. The man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't all innocent but I don't blame him for his actions
  • jcolburn544 on 07 Feb 17
     
    This is an example of growing tension between groups. nation seems divided by pro and anti trump people. the fact that people are speaking their mind is a positive, the fact that our president is causing so much negative uproar so early into his term is a negative.
  • brettday on 07 Feb 17
     
    him using violence only builds support towards the opposite cause.
  • dallastomasello on 07 Feb 17
     
    The young man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't innocent but I don't blame him for what he did.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Jake, this fight shows the nation being further separated between pro-trump people and anti-trump people.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Lauren that the man was picking a fight and I also don't blame Shia for his actions either.
  • Alex Thacker on 07 Feb 17
     
    I don't think it was right for Shia to do what he did but I don't blame him and I see why he did what he did.
  • ahopkins571 on 07 Feb 17
     
    I think this is kind of stupid, Shia should have had the self control not to get into that type of interaction especially because he's a well known person it kind of puts a shadow over him in some ways
  • nick perry on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia should of had some self control, but I see why he did it and don't blame him as well.
  • Landon Mohr on 16 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven. The Neo Nazi was just trying to pick a fight because he knew Shia's background. I understand why Shia did what he did but maybe he does deserve some type of consequence for his actions. Even though the man was trying to pick a fight Shia could've easily just been the bigger person and should've had the self control to walk away.
  • ncollier786 on 16 Mar 17
     
    The man he attacked shouldn't have said what he said so I think Shia was justified to do what he did. The man was asking for it.
  • marly mcmullen on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't blame Shia for fighting this man. Shia could have taken care of it in a different manner but it was out of reaction and the man was pushing his limits. Shia should have not been taken into custody for this.
  • megan sinclair on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think he did nothing wrong, he was defending what he stood for and the Neo Nazi was saying unfair things.
  • abomba12 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think maybe hitting him was going far but he was telling this man to knock it off by what he did to him which is because ti disrupts the social environment. That wasn't the place for someone to talk about hitler and i think it was fine that he taught that man a lesson.
  • lexus2 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't think Shia is wrong for fighting the man, but she could of did something different then fighting him.
  • mhennings622 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I agree with most of the comments above, The man that Shia attacked should have not said anything to him because the guy just wanted a reaction from him. Also Shia was in the wrong for attacking the man, he could have just walked away and not put his hands on the man.
  • caileyhartenhoff on 16 Mar 17
     
    I believe that the comments of the man who claimed victim were wrong. However, everything comes down to perspective. The whole debate is whether or not Shia being arrested for assault was right or wrong. Both sides are at fault. Shia should have had more control especially due to his celebrity standing. Everything a celebrity does is under close inspection and is able to be blown way out of proportion. The man was obviously saying the things he was to get under Shia's skin. However, assaulting someone with physical scrathches being documented is immature. Be the bigger person and walk away.
  • morgann1 on 16 Mar 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf attacked a 25-year old man for saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" outsid eo ghis museum. I believe he could have handled the situation better than the way he did, i understand he was sticking up for what he believes in but he could have approached the guy a different way.
  • Emalie Bowman on 16 Mar 17
     
    With all due respect, I don't believe that most people saying that he should react differently would handle the situation peacefully. You'd be outraged if there was a genocide of Christians that had happened not even a century ago, and a random stranger (knowing you are of that religion) said something similar to "Hitler did nothing wrong", you'd be livid. It is essentially implying "they deserved it." Yes, he has a right to share his opinion. But opinions are more along the lines of "I prefer coffee over tea", not "I think that Jews are less than human, therefore Hitler did nothing wrong because they deserve to die." But it's not simply that, it goes beyond the Holocaust. Jews were the world's scapegoat for CENTURIES before the Holocaust. They've been targeted for centuries, and if I were religious and devoted to my religion and somebody said that to me. I'd more than likely react the same way. Yes, Shia deserved to be punished, he assaulted the dude. But the other guy had it coming for egging him on at what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
  • rwilladsen586 on 17 Mar 17
     
    I think the man was trying to pull a publicity stunt on the actor because he's aware of some of his past actions and he purposely tried to get a rise out of him. Was it legal? Yes. Was it Right? No
  • ahayden800 on 20 Mar 17
     
    I agree with Reed, the person did this to get a rise out of the actor.
  • Jorden Crinklaw on 20 Mar 17
     
    The protester was clearly trying to upset Shia enough for him to attack him. Because once that happened, he was arrested and it was put all over the news, making him look like he attacked an innocent person for absolutely no reason.
12More

Sex offenders sue state after being denied leftovers from their Satanic feast - 17 views

www.desmoinesregister.com/...4600133001
shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21
     
    "They allege DHS officials are infringing on their religious freedom by refusing to let them keep the leftovers from their "Night of Transformation feast," and by blocking access to written materials dealing with blood rituals, spells, vampirism and nudity."
  • ...9 more comments...
  • ataylor074 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think this is wrong, I don't think they have a right to sue. They were told the rules before they had their little event, which I don't think they should have gotten in the first place. They just didn't like that the rules were enforced, and now they are mad. They shouldn't get the luxuries that we do because they are serving time for their crimes.
  • allisonwalker on 08 Mar 21
     
    I don't think they have the right to sue the state. first of all, they were well aware of the rules before this event took place. It's also a health and safety issue with food being taken back to the living quarters. They are just mad they can't enjoy more of the luxury food they were given. Even though they are paying for the choices they made. So, they shouldn't have the right to sue.
  • peytongrenoble on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think they can cry about it. They didn't deserve anything in the first place. :D
  • bklopp601 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I don't think they have the right to sue the state, I might have read this wrong but I didn't see anything about the state doing something that would offend them.
  • eballenger on 08 Mar 21
     
    I don't think they can win this because it's not infringing any rights.
  • tsilva588 on 08 Mar 21
     
    They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state they shouldn't be. It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.
  • ericschmidtberge on 09 Mar 21
     
    Definitely an interesting headline. The claimants (being unjudgemental) feel that they had a religious act violated by the Government. It's a complicated manner because in a way the government did technically interfere with their religious freedoms because the Iowa Department of Human Services put the rule in place that inmates can´t take food into rooms for health reasons centrally not intending to block their freedom but instead concerned about safety and health. I think that even though in a way the claimants do have a point that their creepy and gross religious feast was blocked by the government I also think the rules that were put in place to protect everyone in the prison. Old food can cause sickness, rancid smells, and pests so it Could interfere with other inmates that had nothing to do with the group and therefore I think that the Iowa Department of Human Services is in the right and should win the case.
  • carsonschaa on 09 Mar 21
     
    They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state, they shouldn't be able to do that!! It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.
  • zeaksorensen on 15 Mar 21
     
    i think if they got their way with this then it causes problems with other prisoners trying the same thing.
  • saraivargas on 15 Mar 21
     
    They aren't allowed to enact on their religion if it prohibits others from doing day to day tasks and also hurts/kills others
  • hannahliwai on 15 Mar 21
     
    i agree with sarai. i guess you can worship whomever or whatever you choose. Also, when you are feasting for a "ritual", aren't the foods only used at that time? i mean traditionally... i don't know.
17More

Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel - The Wash... - 33 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...aring-confederate-flag-apparel
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Apr 16
     
    "Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel"
  • ...14 more comments...
  • selena99 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I feel like they band the flag for racism not due to religion, which I understand. But what I also understand is wanting to be able to have the freedom to your religion. And in this case their flag represents that.
  • lizretikis on 12 Apr 16
     
    I honestly believe that it is an infringement on the first amendment and these students should have the right to wear what they want.
  • kadenroen on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think that they should have been able to wear the flag because it's their freedom and they were not doing it to be racist they just wanted to be able to wear what they want because its their right.
  • epond857 on 12 Apr 16
     
    thats so dumb they have the right to wear what ever they want as long as its appropriate to the school policy
  • morgandooty on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think the school was blowing it out of proportion. The students should have been able to wear the confederate flag. The confederate flag has historical significance. I think the school was biased. They were more concerned with the politics surrounding the flag, because it was a pretty debated subject for awhile.
  • bclayton731 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I feel like they shouldn't be able to wear confederate flag apparel mainly because it makes black students feel threatened and reminds them of slavery.
  • elijah57 on 12 Apr 16
     
    Students should be able to wear the flag because they have the right of freedom of expression. Like he said in the article just because he flies the flag doesn't mean he discriminates against race.
  • msap832 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think they are wrong wearing something like that to school and they shouldn't be able too. The school is right for suspending them. Even if they have the freedom to wear what they want there is also school rules and dress codes and that is not school appropriate.
  • alyssaserrano on 12 Apr 16
     
    In the article the students say they are not trying to be racist but the just want to be able to wear what they want to wear, and i think they should be able to. Not every person who wears a confederate flag is racist or supports slavery or the war that was fought to keep slavery. Many people who live in the south have grown up with this flag as a part of their lives weather the true meaning was explained to them or not it was a big part in many peoples lives and you cant expect them to change how they feel about the flag because at one time not many people saw this flag as a big deal because people have a right to support what they believe in. also the flag was not just about slavery it was the symbol of the rebellion and many people who wear the flag had family members that were part of the rebellion and they support their family personally.
  • kgod152 on 12 Apr 16
     
    Very controversial, since the flag was a Representative for the south in the war, founded on hate. Though this is clothing so I guess they shouldn't have been suspended and from what the students say it's not about hate but rather than representing themselves, I suppose? Though I still think they should follow the dress code.
  • Bryan Pregon on 22 Sep 16
     
    Discuss this case from last year...
  • Jacob Jensen on 22 Sep 16
     
    It's so controversial, with whether it's about slavery or true pride of where you are from. As for me I see where the kids are coming from as to want to show their pride in where they're from, for example I will always have pride in the midwest. However if you are wearing the symbol to depersonalize another person, then yes the school had the right to take action.
  • mstiles522 on 22 Sep 16
     
    I believe they had a right to suspend them because it can be taken offensive to certain people but it also is a freedom of speech and what they believe. I think it causes conflict so they shouldn't be allowed and the school did the right thing.
  • Tanner Morriss on 22 Sep 16
     
    I think the school did have a right to suspend them, since the school has a history of the confederate flag causing fights between the students
  • emilbrath on 23 Sep 16
     
    It is important for schools to want and try to create a safe and learning environment for their students, and different students had different beliefs and ideas based on their own color and race.
  • mckennareese12 on 23 Sep 16
     
    I think that the school taking away this could of had an affect on how the kids reacted. If you think about it when someone tells you not to do something you have a slight urge to go against what they are saying. These kids probably wanted to do the same thing, maybe just because they wanted to get under their skin, not because they were standing up for what they believe in.
15More

Bill C-309 | openparliament.ca - 18 views

openparliament.ca/...C-309 protest government occupy bill
shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 12
     
    OK so it is not being proposed in the USA, but this bill recently introduced in Canada is pretty interesting. Think about the people in our country who protest, but don't want their identity to be shown. Would you support this bill or not?
  • ...12 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 12
     
    link seems broken... try this http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/
  • Megan Funkhauser on 16 Feb 12
     
    I think its a good law, people should be able to know who you are. If you really wanna protest, you shouldn't care.
  • Anna Gahm on 16 Feb 12
     
    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.
  • Brice Johnson on 16 Feb 12
     
    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?
  • Carrie Fuest on 16 Feb 12
     
    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.
  • Lauren Rommel on 16 Feb 12
     
    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.
  • Megan Cheney on 16 Feb 12
     
    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
  • Henry Black on 16 Feb 12
     
    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.
  • Derek Large on 16 Feb 12
     
    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.
  • Connor Gann on 16 Feb 12
     
    I think this should be a bill that becomes a law.
  • melloney keller on 16 Feb 12
     
    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!
  • Dustin Gibson on 16 Feb 12
     
    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.
  • awest520 on 16 Feb 12
     
    I think it might be better if you have to register to be part of a protest but to have the list sealed unless things get violent
  • Jordan Smith on 16 Feb 12
     
    I think that they should show there faces. Its there choice to go, so then show yourself, dont hide.
11More

NCAA fixes women's weight room for March Madness after getting called out - syracuse.com - 12 views

www.syracuse.com/...-after-getting-called-out.html politics news
shared by alyne47 on 22 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • alyne47 on 22 Mar 21
     
    Some people think the NCAA is still playing favoritism between Men's and Women's basketball. Having smaller gyms, Haveing women courts being played on the same that volleyball games use, Having the men's basketball TV Schedule name be "NCAA Basketball Tournament " and not be identified (A little confusing point but people had an issue. ) So what do you think of the 3 problems above? What other changes do you think need to be made?
  • ...8 more comments...
  • abbidominguez on 23 Mar 21
     
    I think giving the women a new weight room was the right thing to do. They are both playing in one of the biggest college tournaments in the US and they deserve to be treated fairly. I also think it's great that some big-name NBA players came forward to address the situation to help bring more attention to it.
  • lhunter952 on 29 Mar 21
     
    Giving the women the better weight room was definitely the smart choice. They definitely deserve it, but I see why it wasn't there in the first place. The NCAA loses money every single year having a women's tournament so they just put more money into where they were getting the most money. It was still not fair at all and the girls don't deserve that.
  • sydneykolln on 29 Mar 21
     
    I believe that it's insane that this situation even happened. If the women had just gotten a weight room like the men's from the beginning, then this whole situation could have been avoided. It's honestly laughable that officials gave the women just a single rack of dumbbells thinking that it would be fine. In all, I'm glad that they fixed their mistake but this situation could have been easily avoided.
  • arosas733 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that it was a messed up situation it was like that before and that should have happened a while ago. The women's team deserves a good gym to work out in with the right accessible tools to get their workouts in. They should be having the support to grow individually and as a team.
  • redrose99875 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I'm glad that this issue was addressed, and apologized for. It was so unfair for the women who played sports
  • nick_rice on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that giving the women a new and improved weight room was the smart choice. It is unfair for men to have a superior weight room over women.
  • joeypo10 on 29 Mar 21
     
    Adding more weights and improving the weight room was the right thing to do. But why would they give women so much less than the men. Both genders have equal talents so why discriminate between them.
  • vperez191 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I'm glad that the women got an improved weight room. It is kinda sad how no one would of known about this if the women wouldn't have said anything about it.
  • milo_nordman on 01 Apr 21
     
    I think giving the women a new weight room was a good choice, it's good that they addressed the problem. But the fact that it was a problem in the first place is kind of ridiculous. It could have been easily avoided if they had just given the women's team a proper weight room to begin with.
  • carsonschaa on 12 Apr 21
     
    I don't think it was fair that the weight room was not just like the boy's weight room! It is kinda sad that no one would have known about this if the women wouldn't have said anything about it.
30More

Juvenile Justice: Too young for Life in Prison? - 10 views

abcnews.go.com/...story Politics News Juvenile Prison
shared by Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    I feel like you should be able to charge juveniles as adults. I think it would be absurd to just let kids away with committing crimes, especially the one this kid did. If an adult did something like this no one would even think twice about arresting them, why is it different in this case? I think that he needs to be put behind bars and he needs some sort of counseling because obviously something is not right with him. It might also help to know what kind of background the kid has, to see why he did it. There has to be a reason.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 30 Nov 12
     
    If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.
  • jacob whalen on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.
  • garrett lee on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it
  • jessicavaldez on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.
  • KImberlee Keller on 03 Dec 12
     
    I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.
  • mandyvorthmann on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.
  • Melissa Christensen on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.
  • joecarbis on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 04 Dec 12
     
    Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.
  • gabby valdez on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.
  • bvasquez13 on 04 Dec 12
     
    they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.
  • gharvey949 on 04 Dec 12
     
    I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.
  • jordan bywater on 04 Dec 12
     
    i say same charge for everyone no matter what
  • Emili Davis on 04 Dec 12
     
    if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.
  • Lydia Navarrette on 04 Dec 12
     
    if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age
  • Sidnie Lewis on 05 Dec 12
     
    I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 12
     
    Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.
  • Jared Holcomb on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.
  • blakewilladsen on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability
  • KImberlee Keller on 05 Dec 12
     
    You both make a good point, but when a kid gets charged with a felony, he obviously has done wrong. Sometimes you do bad things, but its not as bad compared to other things. Though when you get older, you can continue to do bad things, and the bad things can turn into crimes, etc. Sometimes charging teens as adults is the way to go, even if it doesn't seem fare. Maybe not fore life, but two years, or even one, wont do any harm.
  • Hyejin Park on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think if someone did crime, they should be punished no matter their age. so make them realize how bad it is.
21More

Germany coronavirus: Fans turn out for Tim Bendzko concert -- but don't worry it's for ... - 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.
10More

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

www.motherjones.com/...ideo-romney-private-fundraiser Government President Candidate News 2012
shared by Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12
     
    During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Alex Snipes on 18 Sep 12
     
    Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)
  • Rainie mccubbin on 18 Sep 12
     
    Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 19 Sep 12
     
    My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 19 Sep 12
     
    So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?
  • Cameron Pick on 19 Sep 12
     
    Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.
  • Mallory Huggins on 21 Sep 12
     
    I agree, people should have to prove that they need help and don't have any other options. Too many people take advantage of the system. I've actually had someone come into the deli where I work and ask if we were hiring, and when I told him I could check, he said he was just asking about jobs so that he could continue receiving unemployment. I think that attitude is way too prevalent in our country.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    The idea of people needing government aid is very broad. I can tell you now, everyone who has ever gone to school was on public aide, some more then others. The government aides the school you go to, for every student, they receive appx. $6000 per student. Now, if we as students were not on government aid, I can tell you now I would not be at school. My parents could not afford $6000 a year for me to go to school. Not to mention another $6000 for my brother. The average student that stops at high school is there for anywhere from 13-14 years, that's over $78000 just to get every student a high school diploma, all of which is funded by the government. I know that the average income of a household is 63k a year. Now take that down to 50k from house payments, which most people do not complete until at least 60. Assuming the average household has 2 children, you are now down to 38k. Assuming your parents both have to make car payments, that is 12k a year for the average american. 26k left. The middle lower class is now spend, on average they make 40k, and have about 6k left. Now, what about income taxes, regular taxes, gas money, food, water, electricity, injury, insurance, and other daily expenses. The middle class can barely get by. As for people people not being able to make that kind of money, the middle class is primarily college graduates, with a bachelors degree. You would be surprised as to how many people do not have that. As for, they could have made it happen. I would disagree, some people are simply not smart enough to get EVERY scholarship out there. I know I am not one of those that can. It's not fair when someone has potential, and cannot go to college when someone with half the potential can just because they already have money. The more potential student should receive that aide.
7More

The women on the front lines of the new abortion battle - CNNPolitics.com - 14 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Julia Gibler on 03 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Julia Gibler on 03 Sep 15
     
    At 21 weeks, the pregnancy had been going well. But the look on the technician's face as she examined the images told Zink that was no longer the case. Further scans revealed that the fetus' brain was badly malformed. Two hemispheres should have formed by then, but the right side of the brain had not developed at all.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • kaylawalden on 14 Sep 15
     
    It's pretty insane to think that any people would have to make a decision to abort their child or keep the baby even though it would be given a life of pain, like Zink's baby would've endured. Normally I would state that I'm very against abortion, but under some certain cases, (like having a baby with a deformed brain that would have to be connected to life support and live with pain), I think the option to have an abortion should be given to some people at 20 weeks or 24 weeks.
  • marisademare on 14 Sep 15
     
    I do not completly agree with abortion, if she was 20 weeks in and the baby was fine and everything was going good then I think it would be wrong for her to of had an abortion, but since the baby had a malformed brain she was putting the baby out of pain the it might of had in the further, it was like putting a dog down its sad but needed to be done in her point of veiw.
  • gillyhyde on 15 Sep 15
     
    I am pro-choice, and believe that any woman should have the right to an abortion. It sounds like they don't really know when babies can feel pain. I think that they should look into that more and find out for sure before passing a law against abortion after so many weeks. It could be harmful to pass one long before or long after babies can feel pain. I think that it was the good thing to do to have an abortion so her child wouldn't have a life full of pain. It's a good thing that abortion is legal, a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body. For example, they could have been raped, not had enough money to support the child, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc. Adoption isn't an "easy way out" of abortion, having to be pregnant for 9 months and giving away a baby you didn't want or couldn't raise is very traumatizing and stressful. It is good that abortion is legal and nobody should get to take that right away from a woman.
  • denniseram on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think women should have the right to have an abortion if they wanted to but to have a limit at how many times they can do so. It is true that if your'e raped and aren't financially well then it will be troublesome. It is better than having to burden the child as well but there is a limit.
  • gillyhyde on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think that it's wrong to say that women should have more right to an abortion if they had been raped or wouldn't be financially stable. Women should also be able to have as many abortions as they want, and it shouldn't be limited. Also I'm wondering what limit there is? And why you think that there should be one if that's what you meant. It is the womans choice, and it's her life and she can do with it as she pleases, so she doesn't have to have a "good reason" or have others think that it is okay if she has one.
  • bharold850 on 17 Sep 15
     
    Women have a right to their own body and abortion is exercising that right. Wanting an abortion is the only reason a woman needs in order to get one. Being raped or a victim of incest are seen as more understandable reasons to get an abortion but those are not the only reasons that should be seen as acceptable. All women have a right to their bodies and a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies.
12More

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

news.yahoo.com/il-term-atheism-152045172.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Jan 15
     
    " "
  • ...9 more comments...
  • pkleppe761 on 12 Jan 15
     
    Reading this article makes me feel very grateful that I live in American where I can speak freely about whatever I want and believe in any religion I choose. It's sad that because some one has different beliefs than others, they are charged and put into jail.
  • djones036 on 12 Jan 15
     
    I think the kid shouldn't be put in jail for this because he is just expressing himself through his beliefs. I'm glad I live in a place where I can have my own thoughts. I can't imagine being put in jail for my view of religion.
  • amcclain946 on 13 Jan 15
     
    It honestly makes me cringe when I read that this student was put in jail for expressing himself through his own beliefs. I understand that it's against Egypt's constitution, but I think that they should be able to express their own beliefs....in every country! I'm thankful to live in America because I'm able to express my own beliefs and be apart of any religion I choose to be without being put in jail. I'm grateful.
  • deanaroth on 13 Jan 15
     
    As an American, we know what freedom is. It is sad to see that other countries truly don't get the ooportunities that we do. It's sad that a child cannot ever truly express himself.
  • darianhubbard on 13 Jan 15
     
    Reading this makes me quite sad to be honest. And also makes me very grateful to live in a country where its founders believed that everyone should have a right to have whatever religion they wish. A 3 year jail sentence is used for more extreme things here in America, but in Egypt it is obviously a major offense.
  • chrislindqvist on 13 Jan 15
     
    I think this is wrong in so many ways and I feel very happy that I live in a country where I can say,write and think what I want without getting in trouble with the government. These countries limiting the capacity of a human which makes them to almost robots
  • samanthaahern on 13 Jan 15
     
    I think this is wrong but I do think they should be able to express their religion
  • austin807 on 20 Jan 15
     
    They should be able to express their religion
  • estuckey767 on 20 Jan 15
     
    I think that people should be able to have their own beliefes and should not be forced to believe in something. I think making him go to jail is a bit exteme. This makes me gratful that I live in a country where I can express my beliefes and not be punished because they may be different than someone elses.
  • Sydney Wilson on 29 Jan 15
     
    I think it's awful that these people aren't able to express openly what religion they are and get put in jail when they do.
  • tcomulada881 on 16 Feb 15
     
    They shouldn't of put him to jail for 3 years. I know they don't have the freedom to express their religions if they aren't the main religions but 3 years is way to long for something so small.
19More

South Carolina adds firing squad to execution methods after running out of lethal-injec... - 20 views

www.abc.net.au/...100125786
shared by Bryan Pregon on 09 May 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 May 21
     
    "Politicians in South Carolina have voted to add a firing squad to the state's execution methods amid a lack of lethal-injection drugs"
  • ...16 more comments...
  • sydneykolln on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • arosas733 on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • nick_rice on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • allisonwalker on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • kredding147 on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • joeypo10 on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • peytongrenoble on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • samhovey on 10 May 21
     
    I agree with Joey, this seems like a recreational activity that fire squads would enjoy participating in, rather than an act of justice.
  • eballenger on 10 May 21
     
    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.
  • milo_nordman on 11 May 21
     
    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.
  • ericschmidtberge on 11 May 21
     
    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.
  • mcaamal on 13 May 21
     
    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.
  • abbidominguez on 14 May 21
     
    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.
  • masonmascarenas on 17 May 21
     
    I don't believe as we are such an advanced society that we should resort back to such a harsh capital punishment.
  • jdogan on 17 May 21
     
    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
  • redrose99875 on 17 May 21
     
    I really hope they get more injections, so the executions can be more humane again
  • tsilva588 on 17 May 21
     
    Honestly, lethal injection isn't any better they still suffer even with that method so I don't really see a problem with this because they will be killed either way.
  • thomaschau on 21 May 21
     
    I think a firing squad is a more humane death than lethal injection. Trained men with rifles and a well-placed shot to the head are the swiftest way to go.
18More

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
17More

Suspect in Craigslist slaying tells reporter she killed in 3 other states - 6 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html cnn
shared by Madyson Burnett on 01 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • Madyson Burnett on 01 Apr 14
     
    This is crazy that someone could kill 22 men in 6 years.
  • ...14 more comments...
  • Kelly Hickey on 04 Apr 14
     
    She murdered more people than Jeffrey Dahmer and in a shorter time period too. Wow.
  • Andrew Myers on 04 Apr 14
     
    I'm not too sure how credible the story is. But, if it is true how had they not have noticed any type of connection between victims? Say, area of killing, type of person they are, etc.
  • krechele on 10 Apr 14
     
    At least she admits it. I think stories like this, are influenced by movies!
  • Melanie Mathiesen on 23 Apr 14
     
    The murderers are really young to have done something like that!
  • Nick Hopkins on 23 Apr 14
     
    She said she killed in Alaska and Florida, causing the police to investigate in both states. Which are probably the furthest states away. It would take a while for the police to investigate the cases. I think that she is trying to gain attention and possibly delay her trial.
  • Deja Hathaway on 23 Apr 14
     
    This is crazy! Who could do something like that?
  • Raul Rodriguez on 23 Apr 14
     
    so she must have put a lot of thought into the murders so she could spare her self more time with the states working together
  • Hailey Hallagan on 23 Apr 14
     
    I think that this is crazy! How can she just sit there and say her and her husband had this planned since they met... Kinda stupid and maybe even a little psycho.
  • Abbey Tierney on 23 Apr 14
     
    that's crazy! its a good thing they caught her. who knows how many more people she would have killed if she was still out there.
  • Sarah Allmon on 23 Apr 14
     
    She said that the police wont find full bodies, only body parts.. from a wide range of ages starting at 13! The couple have had plans to kill together, but the victims never showed up. Barbour said she knew they were going to kill someone together since the day they met! How can someone even have the slightest thought of something like this!!
  • Evan Dreessen on 23 Apr 14
     
    She's heading to prison as a young girl. She wants to be labeled as crazy as possible.
  • Brian Grimes on 23 Apr 14
     
    Women are crazy.
  • krechele on 23 Apr 14
     
    At least she admits it.
  • rjackson654 on 23 Apr 14
     
    I seriously don't think she was able to kill just over twenty men since she was thirteen without one getting away or fighting her back. She'd have to take the men by surprise and even then, I don't think a thirteen year old would have successfully committed a murder and got away with it. I think she is just trying to prolong her trial and send the police on a search for the bodies or parts of these individuals she killed. Regardless, one life is time is prison twenty is a couple lifetimes.
  • Este Smiley on 24 Apr 14
     
    I think you can never be too careful with people on craisglist.. It is full of many people who don't always tell the truth and they are on there for the wrong reasons. There has always been scary problems with Craigslist
  • bohnetsamantha on 30 Apr 14
     
    This was interesting to me, the way she admits to something but the process is taking longer to find her guilty. It's just weird to me that the girl admitted to something more but she's still being questioned. I also think it's a little sketchy that it took her two months and then she finally came out with the story and the locations where she killed them. She did state 2 people got away so finding them would help.
17More

"I can't breathe!" N.Y. chokehold decision - CNN.com - 24 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 14
     
    Recent cases like these bring up issues of POWER and govt authority. Are these examples concerning? Which side (police/suspect) do you tend to sympathize with most?
  • ...14 more comments...
  • taylorcrinklaw13 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't think it's concerning. The government is there for a reason, and they need power to do their jobs. I tend to sympathize with cops because it only shows the bad police that are in the system, a video of an officer doing something good rarely goes viral.
  • chrislindqvist on 04 Dec 14
     
    I sympathize with the cop. He is here to protect us from people that can cause bad things, Michael Brown actually attacked him and the cop did what he had to do to survive. You have to show respect to cops and he didn't do only because he was black or that he wanted to kill someone, he did it becuase the felt threaten for his life
  • Mia Wheeler on 04 Dec 14
     
    I usually don't see death as an answer to anything unless that person is causing harm to other people. I don't think the officer should have actually killed him but instead used a different method to getting him to do what he wanted him to do.
  • Erin Wolff on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think these examples are very concerning. I sympathize with the suspect, Eric Garner, after watching the short 2 minute clip of the incident. The suspect was unarmed, and was only verbally refusing arrest, there is no probable cause for putting the suspect in a choke hold, and very well killing him. The grand jury that decided that officer, Daniel Pantaleo, did the right thing started peaceful protest in the Garner family. This is like the case in Ferguson, Missouri, except these protest do not include, looting, setting businesses on fire, or tear gas.
  • aharding484 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think there could have been a better way to control the situation other than a choke hold. It would be understandable if it was for a few seconds to calm Garner down, but the police should have known when to stop. He should have been charged for excessive force.
  • jgroenjes on 04 Dec 14
     
    I strongly sympathize with Eric Garner and his family in this case. Police are stepping over the line in instances like these, and no penalties are given to them. The fact that death is necessary for the resistance of a single unarmed citizen is horrific. Resisting arrest or not resisting arrest, if there is no threat of fatal harm to the police officer, no arrest should ever resort to murder.
  • fwyldes753 on 05 Dec 14
     
    I understand that the police thought they had to stop him, but putting him in a choke hold was not the right way. They are going to far with the power they think they have.
  • jjohnson749 on 08 Dec 14
     
    i didn't see any reason why the officer put Eric Garner in a choke hold for what he did, the officer was abusing his power, a choke hold was not the right answer.
  • austin807 on 09 Dec 14
     
    They are going to far with the power they think they have, a choke hold was not right way to go
  • samanthaahern on 09 Dec 14
     
    yes especially the part when the officer put eric in the choke. the officer thinks he can do whatever he wants just cause hes a cop and had some power of us but he took it to far
  • darianhubbard on 09 Dec 14
     
    There were better methods of restraint to get Eric Garner into handcuffs. A choke hold was definitely not necessary, and the cop was definitely abusing his power. No attempted arrest should end in the death of someone, cop or citizen.
  • bdiaz971 on 09 Dec 14
     
    The cop has a right to detain anyone that is breaking the law, but he should not have put him in a choke hold. He has numerous tools capable of detaining someone such as; handcuffs, pepper spray, and a taser.
  • kschwindt on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't believe that anyone should have any chances of death when being put in handcuffs, but I also don't know the full story of the incidents of the victims, maybe they weren't cooperating and the cops felt that the only way to control them was the chokehold. I believe that the cops should find another way to hold down their victims when handcuffing
  • escheffler on 10 Dec 14
     
    I think that this case is similar to the Ferguson case which could cause more people to start protesting more and even worse then they already are. Things could get really bad if it ever happened again.
  • djones036 on 10 Dec 14
     
    The cop has a right to detain anyone that is breaking the law, but he should not have put him in a choke hold. He has numerous tools he could of used while detaining someone like his taser, handcuffs, or pepper spray.
  • brooklynschroede on 12 Dec 14
     
    The cop has no reason to put him in a choke hold and for so long. The guy was saying he couldn't breathe. This is very wrong and he could of detained him a few other ways.
14More

Newtown victims' families sue maker of gun used in 2012 attack | Reuters - 27 views

www.reuters.com/...shooting-idUSKBN0JT1QQ20141215
shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 14
     
    "The families of nine people killed in a 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school sued the maker of the gun used in the attack on Monday, saying the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • fwyldes753 on 16 Dec 14
     
    I understand there rage towards the gun company, but you can't sue them for selling a gun. that's what there job is, that's just what they do. they didn't intentionally sell it to that guy knowing the terrible things he was going to do.
  • brooklynschroede on 16 Dec 14
     
    I think the gun makers should not allow that gun to be to sold to the public. Its too powerful. But on the other hand the shooter could just get another gun. I don't think its the gun manufactures fault. People do crazy things, and it just happened to be their gun.
  • escheffler on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree that the gun should not have been sold to a civilian and the maker/seller should be sued for the crime.
  • tcomulada881 on 16 Dec 14
     
    They shouldn't sue the maker/seller, it was legal to sell that type of gun at that time. The seller didn't know that Lanza was going to shoot 20 first-graders and 6 teachers.
  • deanaroth on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.
  • amcclain946 on 16 Dec 14
     
    This whole massacre just absolutely angers me. I cannot believe that a gun that would be used in the military was used by a young, inexperienced man to kill 20 children and 6 faculty. Yeah, the gun-maker didn't know that Lanza was going to go out and do this, but they could have sold a different gun (a gun that would NOT be used in the military.) I think the victims' families did the right thing by sewing the gun-maker. He killed children and wives/husbands....LOVED ONES. That's not okay.
  • justin988 on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.
  • kschwindt on 16 Dec 14
     
    I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day.
  • djones036 on 16 Dec 14
     
    I think that we should have better background checks before people are sold guns. Also the gunmaker had no idea that Lanza would do something like what he did. The families have a good case because he shouldn't have had the gun at all because it is a very highly powered weapon.
  • pkleppe761 on 17 Dec 14
     
    I do believe that such powerful guns should not be allowed to the public, especially for recreational use. I also do believe that before guns are sold to civilians we should issue many different back ground check systems. This is to ensure no gun is more powerful than the ones the law has and no one who is dangerous has a dangerous weapon.
  • mhart079 on 05 Jan 15
     
    I agree that these guns shouldn't be sold to the public and in fact only used for military purposes. But I do not agree that the maker of the gun should be sued. He just made the gun. He didn't influence the carrier of the gun to do what he did with it. It's like suing a company who makes knives in the same situation. It's all about the user, not the maker.
  • austin807 on 12 Jan 15
     
    Guns shouldn't be sold to the public the maker of the gun should not be sued.
  • Erin Wolff on 29 Jan 15
     
    I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day. You can make the gun, but there's no evidence showing the maker of the gun influenced the shooter to do what he did.
14More

Special Report - Nebraska v. Colorado: The War on Weed - 22 views

www.wowt.com/...The-War-on-Weed-295996161.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 15
     
    "Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson in western Nebraska as he built the state's lawsuit against Colorado. His ultimate goal is to shut down the pot industry. "To me, people are being sold a bill of goods from people who stand to make millions from this industry. Our culture is at a pretty critical time where a whole generation of youth are at risk and adults need to step up and say this is a real potential harm to fight against.""
  • ...11 more comments...
  • noahseyboth on 17 Mar 15
     
    I feel that if they try to close down the pot industry they will just be wasting their time. People will still be using marijuana even if its not legal or being grown.
  • zachmurray on 17 Mar 15
     
    I think that if people try and shut down the pot industry, that it will be hard and it wont be easy. pot users and pot lovers will always use pot and will do all most anything to keep it legal.
  • abbyotten on 17 Mar 15
     
    It surprises me that the traffic related fatalities in people who had marijuana in their systems has been raised so much. I didn't realize it was that big of a problem. Maybe adults do need to fight back more for this potential harm.
  • zack gray on 17 Mar 15
     
    I don't feel they should be fighting this war. This because they don't have a valid point saying that marijuana is harmful in all actuality peanuts kill more people annually than marijuana and actually there hasn't ever been a death directly caused by it. Further more alcohol and cigarettes are far more harmful and are still legal.
  • angel fernandez on 17 Mar 15
     
    I think Nebraska has every right to sue the state of Colorado because they can't contain it in their state. That or they need to change their law saying only people who have a Colorado ID can purchase it.
  • mmuffley163 on 17 Mar 15
     
    I feel like legalizing Marijuana is a good idea in my opinion. It can be used to help man medical conditions and also is saving people's lives that really need it. It is used as a stimulate. If the government would legalize it they would make a profit by taxing the product. Therefore benefiting themselves. People are going to do what they want with marijuana, there would have to be certain restrictions on it though. I don't think Colorado will regret this law because it's not only helping them but their society.
  • leomendez on 17 Mar 15
     
    i feel like nebraska is just doing everything it can to get its way and not let the people have what they want. if nebraska would just make it legal, these problems would cease
  • ccannon666 on 17 Mar 15
     
    Although people are going to continue to use marijuana illegally, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to clean our states of it. Shutting down the pot industry may take awhile, but it's a good goal.
  • donaldc802 on 17 Mar 15
     
    I can see why Sheriff Adam Hayward of Deuel County, Nebraska, would want it shut down. It has a dispensary near their county, and makes it a little easier to bring marijuana into Nebraska. And may cost more for patrolling.
  • rduncan264 on 17 Mar 15
     
    I think no matter what you do marijuana will always be here. At least as long as it continues to grow people will continue to use it. I think Nebraska has a good point on how it is affecting costs for more paroling and road searches for people trying to sneak the drugs over, but the world is changing in so many ways and people just need to learn to adapt. I think Nebraska needs to find a way to adapt some how because it's their state thats having problems don't blame Colorado.
  • diegomartinez97 on 18 Mar 15
     
    This should not be tolerated, Colorado is Colorado and Nebraska is Nebraska. There's different laws.
  • dianaschrader on 18 Mar 15
     
    The only reason I am for the legalization of marijuana is because medical marijuana could help my mother. She has a severe nerve condition called trigeminal neuralgia. This is an inflammation if the main nerve in the face. There is research to suggest that medical marijuana could ease the suffering of people like her without all the health risks with what they use now as treatment. The current treatment is round the clock narcotics and this damages the liver. My mother already has liver damage so this could be a safer alternative.
  • jesse_lorenzen on 18 Mar 15
     
    I think Nebraska could be taking it a bit to far with going to court about it be I also think Colorado could be doing more to prevent this.
13More

Ohio Family's 'Graphic' Halloween Decorations Spark Neighborhood Uproar - CrimeFeed - 14 views

crimefeed.com/...-graphic-one-ohio-neighborhood bill Politics news
shared by camilaluther on 14 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • camilaluther on 14 Oct 15
     
    While gore and all things scary are common sights at this time of year, one Ohio family's Halloween display just might have gone too far. Located near a neighborhood elementary school, the Barrett family's graphic Halloween decorations have several residents concerned - with one local even contacting the city to have them removed.
  • ...10 more comments...
  • Julia Gibler on 21 Oct 15
     
    It would be a violation of the first amendment if the family was forced to remove their decorations, but I think they should , out of courtesy, tone it down a little bit because kids are being scared by it. And it doesn't really look like Halloween decorations it is just graphic and violent.
  • jjacobs079 on 21 Oct 15
     
    I think they should take it down since they live near a school and little kids probably walk past and get scared. I think it would be fine if they put it up on Halloween because other people are probably going to have scarier stuff out.
  • tiaross on 21 Oct 15
     
    I don't think they should have to take it down. Everyone decorates their houses in different ways and that is how they chose to decorate their house. What if someone had a blow pumpkin with a face that would be considered scary to a group of two year olds? Should that neighbor take down that blow up pumpkin?
  • amcintosh485 on 22 Oct 15
     
    I don't think the family should have to take this down. Everyone has their own views and opinions. I would be violating their freedom. They may be able to make it a little less scary for the children's sake but they shouldn't have too.
  • ryanlegg on 26 Oct 15
     
    well no person should destroy this, its a work of art, if parents don't like this they can make their children stay home or look away but this is and can be a form of speech. so it can be lowered but it can't be taken away.
  • seanveazie on 26 Oct 15
     
    This is their own option to make it scary. Parents should be able to shield their kids from what they don't agree with.
  • denniseram on 26 Oct 15
     
    Being forced to take it down would be a violation of their freedom of speech. They have the right to express themselves.
  • anthony309 on 26 Oct 15
     
    The family put a lot of work into their decoration.
  • Sunshine Wink on 26 Oct 15
     
    It really isn't fair for the family to have to take down their decorations, because some parents don't agree with it. If they don't agree with it they don't have to pay attention to it. The family shouldn't have to adjust their halloween fun and decorations to make someone else happy.
  • kaylawalden on 26 Oct 15
     
    The United States is based off the freedom of expression, and if the Ohio family wants to set up decorations for Halloween they are more than allowed to do so. Because of this freedom of expression it wouldn't be fair to have to take down their decorations.
  • katiepetersen005 on 26 Oct 15
     
    I do not think that the family has to take down the decorations because it is their house and they can decorate with what ever they want. However, even the smallest things can harm people. Just seeing a foam headstone can set someone off. Another note is that Halloween is mostly just for kids now so that would lean toward taking down the decorations.
  • chris563 on 26 Oct 15
     
    i don't think its right that people where getting mad at it because that's what Halloweens about horror and its suppose to look really and be scare that's the whole point of Halloween I don't think they should change anything
14More

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.
16More

Should people pump gas into plastic bags during the fuel shortage? Please don't, offici... - 16 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...gas-shortage-plastic-bag
shared by qanderson136 on 17 May 21 - No Cached
  • qanderson136 on 17 May 21
     
    It amazes me that people would even think this is a good idea. What are your thoughts?
  • ...13 more comments...
  • sydneykolln on 17 May 21
     
    People should definitely not pump gas into plastic bags or any container that is not meant for gas. My main thought is that people shouldn't take more gasoline than they truly need. People stalking up on gas is just going to make the shortage worse than it already is.
  • jdogan on 18 May 21
     
    people hoarding gas in this situation only worsens the situation in a fuel shortage when you take more than you need you're just taking a conscious decision to disadvantage other people who wouldn't be able to get gas.
  • ericschmidtberge on 19 May 21
     
    I´m not surprised by this at this point. I had a gas can spill over in my car and I couldn't breathe when I was driving so I think it´s a hazard that so many people are driving around with bags of gas in their trunk that I bet not only leak but the gas probably destroys the plastic causing more leaks. Theoretically, you can ruin the gas this way not only by spilling it but by the plastic infecting it. It´s also just a bad idea in general to hoard gas because if it runs out at a slow pace the more likely there will be time to refill the stations.
  • jackiegonzalez on 19 May 21
     
    People need to stop putting gasoline into plastic bags because it's only causing more contamination to the planet. I think people instead should try to calm down and we try to figure out what to do about the fuel shortage.
  • thomaschau on 21 May 21
     
    I don't think people realize that the gasoline will burn the plastic bags so you're pretty much wasting your money by the time you get home from the gas station.
  • rosellyrosas on 24 May 21
     
    I feel like just because something became more expensive, doesn't mean you can get it while it is "cheaper" excessively.
  • lhunter952 on 24 May 21
     
    This is crazy to think that people actually do that and think that it's a good idea. Fighting to get to the gas first also isn't going to help, it will just start a craze and everyone going for gas will cause the prices to rise even more.
  • carsonschaa on 24 May 21
     
    It amazes me that people would even think this is a good idea and even try putting gas in a plastic bag.
  • arosas733 on 24 May 21
     
    I feel like this is wrong and not even a safe, smart, efficient way to go about collecting fuel for yourself. And the people that are taking more than they need and know it are completely wrong, there are people who rely on that and being selfish is just ridiculous for them.
  • tkoesters274 on 24 May 21
     
    I feel like this is just unsafe and not smart. If the bag broke they would spill everywhere, wasting more gas. Also, if there is gas in bags you're being selfish and could potentially put yourself in danger.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    What no who comes up with these ideas
  • mcaamal on 24 May 21
     
    I thought this was dumb because they were scared of a shortage but like stocking up with gas would only be making it worse because they are helping the storage.
  • abbidominguez on 25 May 21
     
    This is not only idiotic but unsafe as well for so many obvious reasons. People scrambling and trying to hoard gas is only going to make this 'shortage' worse.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    This one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Why would anyone even think to do this? First off it's unsafe and hazardous and second just plain dumb. People need to not be greedy and just calm down with trying to hoard gas.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    What? No way. Not only is that a selfish thing to do, but it's dangerous as well. This could be like the toilet paper incident from the beginning of last year but for southerners.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 60 of 525 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page