Danlevan's Waterfall
I think you are right there, Addy. There's no reason why Matt Fraser had to write his speech the way he did, or deliver it in the manner which he did. His choice to do so disrupted the learning of others, and so I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Fraser overexercised his freedom of speech and did so unnecessarily.
But sometimes the only punishment that is suitable for a person's crimes is the death penalty. Take, for example, Ted Bundy, the mass murder. He died on January 24, 1989 in an electric chair. You can't say he didn't deserve to die after taking the lives of over 30 other people!
Such a controversial topic, Morgan... I agree with you that you shouldn't have the right to take the life of a human being before it is born. But then again we have the case in which the woman was raped, and has no means to support the child, nor a want/will/desire/etc. Should she have to go through with the pregnancy? If you say yes, then you are forcing on her the burden of childbirth and either putting the newborn up for adoption or caring for it. If you say no, then the human being will lose its life... to be honest, I couldn't decide one way or the other.
Sorry April, but I have to disagree with you on this one. In order to get a concealed carry permit, a person must pass a background check and pay a fee. With such a great responsibility attached to this permit, any infraction such as misuse would be punished severely. If a person who had a concealed carry permit decided to, for some reason, shoot an innocent person, you can be certain that the shooter would go to jail and possibly recieve a death sentence. People who carry a concealed weapon do so because they want to prevent crime, not start it.
Exactly Maggie! Every person should get treated the same way, their sexuality shouldn't be a factor. There's no reason why we can't treat LGBT people the same way we treat heterosexual people! Two of my friends that I know of are homosexual, and they are awesome people! They don't have a problem with the way others think about them, because they are proud to be who they are, and I think that's a great thing!
I don't think Obama needs a chance; he had 4 years to change this country for the better and where did we go? The opposite direction. We spent more, and fell deeper into debt with him more than any other president this country has seen. Do I think this is ALL necessarily HIS fault? No, but he is partly responsible. I don't think he needs a "chance" because we already gave him one.
I agree with you, Maggie. Nothing is changing, nothing is getting fixed, etc. It isn't necessarily just Obama's fault either; there are so many people arguing and taking sides that people are now caring more about the political aspect of the issue of debt and less about resolving it. Every day our country spends more and more, and each branch is responsible in part for pulling the country down a little further, merely because they aren't helping America pull herself out of this hole. The branches of government are quite necessary, but they aren't doing much good right now.
Obama has not done anything specific in order to get himself impeached. Yes, I think he is not helping America at all, but that doesn't mean that we can just take him out of office; you have the chance to do that at the next presidential election. I don't think he did anything he promised to do while campaigning for the presidency, but you can't exactly expect this entire country to pull itself out of debt overnight. It's still going to take a fairly long time to get out of debt, if we ever do.
Exactly. The main group of people that are pushing for weed to become legalized are not terminally ill, they just want to get high. There shouldn't be any reason why weed has to be legalized other than for medicinal purposes. Take California as an example, if you say you have a headache, you can get weed. The people that are dealing it out know you aren't sick, you just want the drugs. In my opinion, that should be illegal.
http://marcel285.hubpages.com/hub/
You are missing the point completely. Any individual with a criminal record CANNOT GET A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR OWN ANY FIREARMS. You have to be a very responsible person to carry. The right to concealed carry is not something that is taken lightly and many steps are taken to make sure that right is NOT ABUSED. Why would you want to kill an innocent person just because you can? You can go to jail for many years or even recieve the death penalty for doing so.
Why should it be illegal to purchase weapons? How would hunters kill their game? Without bows, rifles, handguns, shotguns, slingshots, knives, etc., how do you expect hunters to put food on the table? And on top of that, shotguns are used for trap, skeet, and sporting clays. Those are all Olympic sports. Not only that, but the right to concealed carry is something that we gun owners take very seriously. We carry to protect innocent people like YOU from people that COULD harm you.
I agree with you completely, Morgan. For the majority of people in the United States, the legalization of weed will not mean relief from a terminal illness (i.e. medical usage)
but the abuse of weed and the mere consumption of it for pleasure. I really don't think weed has to be legalized for any reason other than medicinal purposes, because people do not need weed for any reason other than that.
Okay coffee is a stimulant drug, one filled with caffeine, but has a completely different effect on the body when compared to the effects of weed. Coffee increases blood pressure and helps the body to "wake up" while weed impares your senses and your thought process. In my opinion, those are two drugs that can't quite be compared to each other. However, cigarettes could be used as a more valid argument, as there is medical proof that they damage your body.
No one can legally get a concealed carry permit if they have a criminal background. Not only that, but you have to pay a fee as well before you can carry. Many people have taken this law the wrong way. Everyone who is carrying is NOT going to be out trying to kill people. It's the individuals that say people who have a concealed carry permit are out to kill others that give gun owners like me a bad name. This law should result in a lesser amount of deaths from shootings by gangs, because more people will have the ability to fight back.
You are completely right, April. The government has no right to recoke the rights of the American people by censoring the internet! Not only will major websites suffer, but so will the rest of the internet! This bill has the power to limit almost everything that is out on the internet right now. If the government really wanted to stop copyright infringement, then they could devise a mush simpler way to do so instead of just completely taking over the internet. If you are truly against this bill, you can sign this petition showing you support AGAINST it.
This isn't quite a current event, but one very influential person to the U.S. government that stands out to me is President George W. Bush. There is an awful lot of controversy surrounding him and everything that happened while he was the head of this nation, but I believe that he was a great individual who was a big assest to this nation. His response to 9/11 was proper and justifiable; you don't mess with the U.S. because we will put you back in your place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I don't think that there is one specific president that can be held responsible for singularly plunging this nation into debt, almost every president has contributed to that issue (some more than others).
http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I figure that SOPA is an issue directly related to free speech, which is one the things we went over in this class as part of the Bill of Rights.
After reading through the top link, I saw just how dangerous House Bill 3261 could be.
"You may be painted as infringing if you, the site owner, “take deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of…the site to carry out acts [of copyright infringement or circumvention].” This means if you deliberately decide that it’s not cost-effective to screen every piece of content and determine whether or not it is copyright-free before it is posted to your site (whether there is infringing content on your site or not), then you are labeled as an “Internet site…dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” Simply the act of not actively screening every piece of content makes you a criminal under SOPA."
SOPA, also known as House Bill 3261, is a bill that proposes to censor the internet. I, along with millions of other people, am against this law. If this bill becomes a law, it would be akin to the government limiting our so-called free speech! The only good part about this bill is that it would help stop pirating and copyright infringement. However, there are so many bad things in this bill that they outweigh the one good thing by tenfold. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, eBay, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL, and LinkedIn wrote a letter to some members of Congress on November 15 in protest to this law. It would severely hurt this websites, and could almost indefinitely lead to a crash in the stock market.
http://news.cnet.com/
http://gizmodo.com/5877000/what-is-sopa
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/
http://www.cbsnews.com/
For any reason other than medicinal purposes, I don't think that weed should be legalized. Is there any reason why people have to get high to feel better if they are not terminally ill? I don't think so. Scientists can say anything they want to say about how weed affects the human body, but it is not healthy for you. They may say that there are no discernable results from smoking weed, but you can't say that you benefit from it. Weed impairs your senses and reaction time, and alcohol does the same thing to your body. But weed and alcohol are still two different things and you can't compare those two things together.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/
If our government had to function without one of the sections that is present today, I think that America would be a very different place in which to live. For example, the way our government is set up right now, there exists a series of checks and balances that insures that none of the branches overpower the other or are taken advantage of. If, for example, the Judicial Branch was not there, we would not have a specific branch that could take care of interpretting the laws that are created by the Legislative Branch. I believe our country would become quite messed up in short order if we had to function without one of the branches of government. The remaining branches would have to compenstate for the lack of the third branch, and I'm sure that wouldn't end well.
I am against Obama's plan for taxing millionaires. Why? Mainly because I don't think it will work. It is not a fair plan, to me. If you worked hard in order to make your fortune, does the government have any right to request a greater tax from you over anyone else? Why should an individual who gained his/her wealth legitimately, through hard work and determination, be forced to surrender a larger sum of money to the government?
So, everyone who is not a liberal should take up a liberal point of view... Sounds like a little bit of a dictatorship to me! The entire country should embrace liberalism in order to work out the problems we are facing, such as debt, unemployment, war, etc. That is an interesting way to fix the United States, but I don't think that it would work too well. Without another political faction to balance the scale (legislative, judicial, as well as legislative decisions) this country could very easily become much more messed up than it is currently.
Brent, I believe that you make very good points. We have to make sure that we do not keep spending money in the manner that we have been, or this hole we call debt will become a bottomless abyss of which we have no chance of climbing from. Also, we you say that we have to become more liberal in order for options to dig us out, I think you may be right. Conservatives generally look to the past in order to fix the present, but solutions may not preexist, a liberal view could bring about more options which could be used to get this country out of debt, and possibly fix other problems at the same time.
I believe that, at this point in time, the Conservatives have better plans than the Liberals. For example, people who live off the government, without any plans to get a job/work for a living, would have the right to claim part of the money that people who are actually working are making. Basically, those who do nothing all day would get money for doing nothing. Doesn't really make sense, does it? Why should people who work 10, 11, or even 12 hour days, out in the elements all year, have to share their hard-earned money with people who could care less about working or supporting their country? Oh, and taxing the millionaires... that's a good plan. Millionaires and billionaires are the people who create companies, therefore they also create jobs, and increasing their taxes will hurt the economy more than help it. Obama will hardly earn the support of these wealthy individuals by raising their tax rate, who, I might add, are also very helpful when it comes to funding a campaign (for example; a campaign for re-election could be fueled by rich people who would be more than happy to help out a man (Obama) whom they believe in. However, when their taxes are raised by this same man in whom they placed trust and support, do you really think that they will be jumping to give him more money? I wouldn't... If a bill was passed that would increase the amount of money which you had to give to the government, would you still be as supportive of that government?)
