Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

everyone should be getting flu shots to try to control the virus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case should not even be allowed. Just because he has to do these predictions doesn't mean he will always be right. After all, like the article says, he's just a groundhog.

What?! I don't see what the big deal is if a groundhog gets his PREDICTION wrong. This dude needs to lighten up.

i think that it is bad that he got it wrong because a lot of people were looking forward to spring coming so we could enjoy the nice weather but you cant always be right 100% sometimes you say something and it might not always happen like you say it will.

That is just ridiculous, A. it's a PREDICTION, and they are never for sure B. It is only a groundhog... If America can barely trust people, why should it trust an animal?

Why do we rely on a groundhog to predict our weather. What's next a tomato that can perdict the next president?

IT'S A GROUNDHOG... how is it absolutely guaranteed to predict the weather? Maybe it can predict what I'll get on my next test!

I guess a ground hog would be able to change it up if it wanted to, we need to fire that ground hog and hire a new one. Spring just needs to come soon so I can play some more tennis and get to a golf course.

This is just plain out stupid. There is nothing anyone can do to control the weather. And I know it's surprising, but not even a groundhog can control the weather.

sounds like a cheap energy source and it help make sure the environment stays clean too.

This is really interesting. The article skims over the possible downsides to this program, though. It mentions that "highly polluting dioxins" that are produced by the process are landfilled again in Norway. What are the effects of the dioxins, and if they are highly polluting, is simply landfilling them safe? Also, importing garbage from Italy would require a lot of resources. I'd like to know the cost vs. benefits of that solution.

Sweden sounds like they actually care about the earth and found a cheap energy source

that sounds amazing! its just time before United States does the same thing

This doesnt sound like a bad thing...

Obama is claiming he can't and wont pardon Edward Snowden, also known as the most famous whistleblower in our governments history, solely because he hasn't stood before a court. The president CAN pardon him, but decides not to. Snowden would appear before a court if he knew it'd be a fair trial, but he knows that wont happen. He knows how tyrannous the government is and wont even attempt to have a fair trial.

I agree with Deven because as soon as Snowden steps foot on United States soil he's getting thrown into federal prison and then going to go on trial and not win because it wouldn't be a fair trial

Deven is correct on this one. The thing I find interesting is that Obama said that if Trump pardons Snowden then he will pardon Clinton, the problem with that is Clinton wasn't convicted of anything.

Zayne brought up the Clinton situation, I agree with that because you can't pardon somebody who wasn't convicted of anything, so how would he pardon him?

Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because what he did was against the government policy, even though he was trying to tell america what our government was doing he still violated the law.

In this article, one paragraph says that Obama pardoned three Iranian Americans before they stood trial. So in a way I think Obama is just using his opinion and not giving Snowden a chance. It's truly unfair that if he steps on US soil he will be thrown in jail, when really he just wants a chance to explain himself

I agree with the president on forgiving him because we deserve to know this information.

I think Obama could have pardoned him but is choosing not to. The fact that he's saying that he's not able to is ridiculous. Though what he did was considered against the law, sometimes we need people to go against in order to uncover hidden truths.

On the idea of pardoning Snowden, I agree with Nate because although the information he had should have been told to the public, just in a different way, he broke major laws, so there must be consequences. And going off of Devin's idea of no fair trial is inevitable.

I think that Jill Stein is just having the recount to be able to raise money so that she can donate it to her own campaign if she decides to run in the next election.

I feel like Jill Stein is just using this for farther popularity and to help with her campaign if she ever decided to run for president.

She has a right to do this since this country thrives on our freedom. I don't think she should be suing states just because she wants a recount though. If a state doesn't want to vote again isn't that also in our rights? I don't know what all of Jill Steins motives are and though I disagree with her, she still has the right to ask for a recount however the turnout will be.

Whatever her reasons for fighting for a recount are, she is gaining attention. Whether the recount comes out how she wants it to or not, Stein will have benefited. That being said it's understandable why she feels the need to raise money for it.

Donald Trump denounced the Stein recount effort as "ridiculous" and "a scam." and I disagree with what he said. It is not a scam because she is using the donations for how much the recount will cost.

I agree with Landon, I also think though she will give it to other charity,but use it as popularity.

I believe that Jill Stein has the right to demand a recount and has good intentions for such sudject, but I also belive that when it all follows through, that it will not change anything for the future.

"By continuing to raise money, she is building up a larger donor list that she can later turn to if she runs again." I think that even though she didn't win, it's a good opportunity to help her in other ways. I also think its a good idea because she'll then have a backup if she runs again.

The article said that she would donate all excess donations to election reform systems, weather or not this turns out to be true remains to be seen. Regardless the changes would be considered extremely important by many of today's voters who think that the electoral college ruins democracy and therefore don't vote. If the election recount doesn't result in evidence of fraud or tampering, then the excess money should be put to good use regardless.

I think that jill Stein is gonna earn all this money for the next upcoming election . She is going to donate the money to her election fund.

I agree with Landon as well because I feel like she just wants the attention and to gain the money

I agree with Lauren because she shouldn't be suing states because they don't want to do a recount, it's our choice if we do our not. We picked who we wanted and that's who we got she's just using this for publicity and to help her if she runs again.

Jill Stein has the right to a recount whether shes in it for the money or not, shes someone who can afford and has the power to do so opposed to some citizens who want to have a recount but obviously don't have that kind of money or power. If she does prove the voting ballets wrong after to recount, she will not only have gotten Hillary president, but she is going to increase her popularity for her own benefit in the future. Even if she doesn't achieve her goal she will have gained attention in some sort of way.

I agree with Landon. I also think she is having this recount to get attention.

I agree with Landon and Lauren, she's gaining attention for herself and it's not right for her to try and sue states because they don't want to recount.

Jill Stein is just doing it for more publicity so when or if she runs again in 2020 it will make her look better and be the more popular vote

I agree with Faith, because if she wants to run again, she is already sorta popular, and will have more attention drawn to her than she does now, ans she may be a candidate with the media partially on her side.

I think Jill Stein is just using this to raise money for herself and her party and once they get enough, they'll drop the whole thing and use the money for other reasons. Her reasons for a recount are idiotic and it will prove that Donald Trump won the election fair and square.

This is pretty cool. Even if the end result does not chance the ability to call for a recount is cool to me, it allows for total certainty in the voting process and gives Jill stein a potential platform for the next election. Assuming she runs as a third party all the publicity she can gain to validate a 3rd party is a positive.

I think Jill Stein is just doing this to get people to notice her.

I understand why she is doing it however it is a choice and could what she is doing reflect her reaction to who won? her intentions may be more to change who won rather than seeing if the votes are justified

Jill Stein has the right to call for a recount if she wants to. People amuse too quickly that she is only in it for her self. And yes, while doing so will give her some sort of an advantage in one way or another, she is doing this to show once and for all who won the election. If this happens, it could change who are president will be.

delanie hi and i agree

I think that the election is over and Jill Stein should just leave it alone.

This is not even worth it, because Trump won fair. Jill is just like Hillary. Sure she has the right to do so, but its not going to do anything Trump won deal with it america!.

I don't know anything about this election, but I think that if she wants to keep doing this more power to her, I don't think that it will change anything. I partly think she is doing this for attention and to get herself known so that she may be able to move up in her career eventually, but I think she knows that the recount won't matter.

I think it is pointless to even try and it won't change the outcome.

She has the right to do this but I think the election is over and it wouldn't change anything

I agree that Jill has the right to call for a recount. I really hope that in doing that she is using her power for good, and standing up for what she believes in rather than to get attention. If she's fighting for what she believes in, then you go girl!

I think that she is raising money for her own benefit, because even if she gets enough for a recount it wont change anything.

Donald Trump has promised many things since he started running for president some more difficult and outrageous then others. The easier ones and would be the keystone pipeline to finish it to connect it form Canada to Nebraska but harder ones such as building a wall on the border

Donald Trump blatantly said he wanted a wall, a great, big, beautiful wall to help improve border control, perhaps even completely stop it. I personally think the idea is ridiculous, building a wall? That's the plan? It must've taken him 5 minutes to come up with this idea. I understand improving border control, but trying to implement a wall that stretches halfway across America is just insane. That "promise" will more than likely never happen.

I don't agree with this quoted statement because as bad as racism use to be, it has gotten better for sure. There will never be peace between blacks and whites, but there is a certain level of being equal either way.

I don't think that all republicans were against Obama solely because of his race, some people did just disagree with him. However, I do think that some people did take that into play. In the article a close representative said 'He recalled a moment when a powerful Republican said to him, "you know, we don't really think you should be here, but the American people thought otherwise so we're going to have to work with you.""

I disagree with this quote because I don't not believe racism has gotten worse since a time period like 1960. The problem is that the media has gotten so corrupt it makes it seem that way.

I believe it has worsened since he has been in office. With a black president it kind of gives them a better chance to protest. I believe once Donald Trump is president they would have less a chance and less riots.

I think that the tension between blacks and whites haven't got any better since Obama entered office, but the relations between blacks and whites now are better than they have ever been in America.

Obamacare has been sometimes helpful but it has also crashed our country.

What exactly did it do to "crash" our country, and how did it do so?

I agree with Landon, in many ways, Obamacare has crashed our country, but it is always to look at the solutions to our problems, our options, and most importantly, look optimistically at the ways Obamacare has helped us. I think a big one is children can now stay on their parents' insurance until age 26. It has helped 5.7 million young adults over the past five years!

they meet on how to defend the act and how to help it protect other forms of people.

"Other executive actions, including those providing new safeguards for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans and curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, could also come under fire" this in addition to obamacare being repealed does not make much sense to me. Along with the anti abortion deal. It seems like this is less of a "whats best for America" situation and more of a " erase obama and his administration" kind of deal. not a fan

I agree with Landon, and Jamie. In many ways obamOcare has helped us, but it hasn't in others.

Obamacare has done nothing but ruin the country by raising the price of healthcare, Obamacare should be removed and let healthcare actually be affordable.

I don't think trump should've did the ban because people are trying to escape out of where they live. I like how Canada was saying how they'll take them in so they know that they are welcomed.

I thought America was supposed to help other countries and work with other countries, not ban travel and trade to those countries.

His executive order is causing mass confusion all over. First the Homeland Security officials weren't given guidance about how the order would be effect everyone, then Trump apparently never ran the order by officials at the Justice Department. then people who were in the air flying weren't allowed to enter because they came form one of the seven countries even when they had a valid green card and visa! I think that trump needed to have a better plan in place rather than just jumping in on something he didn't think enough about.

I think that from the physiological stand point this court case makes seance. How ever I think that our tax dollars should not be used to make this medical procedure happen.

This is a very odd case to say the least. This prison inmate is at 13x the risk of a sexual assault as the average inmate. So, the question is, is the protection of a near-insane murder worth tax payer dollars? I don't think so, but something has to be done about the inmates safety, perhaps being placed alone, or with people of the preferred gender of the inmate? In the event of tax payers paying, is it really that much? The government comes up with about $2,650 billion yearly from income tax alone. To add on, it is really not that often that this expensive of a situation arises. Is it really that big of a deal for something that almost never happens, but may help someone in the near future?

This may be what's "best" for the inmate, but he/she (no offense intended, I just don't know what to call them) murdered someone. Don't you think that a murderer should in some way "pay" for what they've done. They don't deserve the best, but they also don't deserve to be sexually assaulted. Also, tax payer dollars should not go towards things like this, that money is for the betterment of the community and/or the country. To fix the sexual harassment problem, the inmate should be put somewhere alone. Yet, another question rises, what about all the other inmates (male or female) who are sexually assaulted? We can't worry about them all, plus they're in there for a reason, they don't deserve tax money to go towards protecting them whenever they put others in danger that led them to be in prison. So, the answer is no, it's not worth it. It's not tax payer's problem.

if this person wanted to become a women then wouldn't they prefer men? which means that if they are 13 times the risk, wouldn't that be a good thing since they like guys? well if it was a rape then i understand but there are sometimes in prison when it isn't a rape or sexual assault, both want to do it. in that case that person should consider themselves lucky to be around guys all the time.

haha what if this dude was just really straight and thought that if he gets a sex change that he will be placed with da lady's so he wouldn't be around all da dudes n stuff .

I agree with Payton just place her alone if its for her safety. If its for her mental condition send her to a prison mental health facility.

I just don't understand how a PRISON INMATE is allowed that luxury of sex change surgery. Especially considering the price and how much it really is causing taxpayers

I think having a cross at the museum is acceptable. The meaning of a cross varies from person to person. Yes many victims might not have been Christians but people affected from 9/11 should also have the right to display any religious symbol here as well.

it is a nation under god so they shouldnt have a problem with the cross "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, (one Nation under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

If it's okay to put up a cross then it should be okay to put up any symbol of any religion. As long as they do that then I think it's okay.

I agree with you Jazmine and Dennis, this is a nation under God. We live in a free country that was started by Christians and to this day, they should be honored. With the honor of those who died in 9/11, should be remembered with a cross and it should not be taken down because of those who don't believe in God. Even if someone doesn't believe, it doesn't mean the ones who do have to cater to them by taking the cross down. If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it, because those who it does effect, want it there and they should be respected as well

i agree people have the right to believe in whatever they want so if that means putting up a cross at ground zero then that's fine. It also says in the pledge that we are a nation under god, and i believe that there many more christian people in the United States than Atheists so i believe that it was the right thing to do.

I"m Atheist and I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a cross put up. It's a sign of 9/11 not a sign promoting God. It's not like people are going there to worship God they are going there to remember those who died in 9/11.

The article points out that there are other publicly funded museums have religious art work in them because religious artwork has both cultural and artistic value. However, in my opinion using the argument that we are a country under god is a subjective and highly personal belief. If there is an atheist that lives in Happyland, Connecticut and they don't believe in god how can they, in their view, live in a nation under god. The First Amendment is to prevent the government from establishing and/or favoring one religion over another or religion altogether over no religion at all. I don't feel that the cross alone violates this part of the First Amendment if placed in a museum because I don't see it as the government promoting or favoring a religion that uses a cross as their religious symbol. The way I see it the government is allowing an artifact from a disaster the affected the entire population and has become a cultural and possibly artistic representation of the 9/11 attacks in to the museum. In my view it would be different if they added something about Christianity or religion to the display along with the cross, but if they were to just put an information card that says, "The 'World Trade Center Cross' was discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center," or something similar then it wouldn't cross the line.

I really like that fact that the cross was found in the rubble. Its not like some artist decided to make it from the rubble. I'm sure if there was a different symbol of any religion found it would have been put on display just like the cross was.

i feel that the death penalty should stay around as a form of punishment, but only for the most heinous of crimes. As for how we obtained this lethal drug, it is ours legally and can not be taken back. However america should start making our own lethal drugs if we want to take part in executions.