Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

I think it's crazy just how large the rates actually were compared to what was being reported. My mom is a teacher in Omaha, so it makes me kind of worried that the rates are that high. I definitely think that they should be working on adding more protection for students and staff.

I think it's good they are going through these measures to protect students and its crazy how high the rates are and something should be done about it

I'm glad that schools are pushing for more testing. I think that students who are asymptomatic are more likely to think they are immune to Covid-19 and start disobeying Covid-19 safety measures. It's problematic because these students can spread Covid-19 to someone who will truly suffer from it. So, more testing is a good way to prevent this from happening.

A lack of testing always gives the illusion that things are better than they are, so it's good that they got this done and found out these numbers because I think it's very important to realize this number especially since it was six times what was previously observed.

it's good that they want to test kids more regularly. some kids will just brush it off and say "it's a cold". this way, the kids who are tested pos. won't be affecting others as well as the asymptomatic students.

Wow... sure, there are inconsistencies in the coverage of the Newtown massacre, but there are inconsistencies in any news story that is reported on by more than one individual. To claim that the massacre may not have happened at all - and the professor is the only person who says this - is extremely disrespectful.

KC news is reporting on petitions to have the Westboro Church classified as a hate group and remove their tax exempt status as a "church" http://fox4kc.com/2012/12/17/westboro-meets-its-match-thousands-sign-retaliatory-petitions/

I don't condone the activities of this group but they have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they want with it no matter how hateful it is and people could have private funerals

They should leave people be, to bad they most likely never will, Because the parents can't even stop them without likely being sued by Westboro.

I do not agree with their way of think about homosexuals. I think that the church should mind their own business in their own sate. The parents and everyone should just ignore the Westboro Church.

i think we should ignore the group otherwise we are giving them the attention they want.

It is sad that this church will stoop this low to get their (totally invalid) point across. They are a bunch of idiots if you ask me.

I think that they have the right to be there, but they should understand that this is not a good time to do this. They should understand how hard it must be for their parents, and would feel the same way if one of their children died. I also do not agree with the fact they blame homosexuality for all the problems and say God hates America. In reality God does not hate anyone because we are all his children.

I can truly see the side of the Westboro Baptist Church but it does not mean that I agree with it. I find that America itself has quite a few strange beliefs itself defended by these rights. I don't have any means to go against these rights.

I think that they have the ability to not allow the Church to protest.

I'm all for free speech. But I think there should definitely be a line drawn as where freedom of speech ends.

I think "attack" is not necessarily the appropriate word for this particular situation... Everyone is entitled there opinion, and I see how some people could find this unprofessional to do it at such an event like the Golden Globes. I was watching at the time when she said what she did, and the audience applauded her afterwards, so overall I believe that Meryl stated her opinion and theirs nothing wrong with that. I am not for sure, but I do know that these actors are asked to give speeches before hand and rehearse before the show... and she must have been given the right to give the speech anyway, possibly to start talk and get attention.

I agree with delanie because everyone is entitled there opinion. But at the same time, i don't think that this was the time or place to bring it up. But in the same way, it needs to be brought up, just not in that setting.

I agree with delaniehubbard because I wouldn't consider it an attack. Meryl was just stating that she didn't think that what Trump did was appropriate. I think it was right for her to address this and she was also correct when she said "This instinct to humiliate when it's modeled by someone in the public ... by someone powerful, it filters down into everyone's life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same." Its not correct for someone that will be the next president to be doing this, because its disrespectful

I agree with delanie because everyone does have their own opinion

I think that Streep calling out Trump was very appropriate. When Kanye called out Taylor Swift years ago at an awards show it was glorified so I don't think that a highly respected woman who is voicing her opinion over serious conflict, not trying to start drama or a "twitter war" is very appropriate and is in no way a problem. I agree with everything Streep said and I'm sure many people in the audience and viewing the award show did also.

I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.

Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.

I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.

If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.

I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug

But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,

If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.

I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.

I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.

I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.

There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said