Profiling is rather nessescary for the safety of the country despite the obvious feelings of prejudice and racism. No law, no ruling, no security is flawless and profiling is just another defense against the imperfections. I understand the argument that a security should be strong enough and smart enough to maybe not use this tactic, and even profiling isn't the best of methods, but when it comes down to the fine line of upseting one person's feelings for a minute to saving the country, why not answer a few questions? Now, there may need to be some changes to the questions asked; rather than ask questions specific to the race and religion of the people taken aside, have a set of questions to for everyone.

Though in most cases torture is seen as brutal and wrong, there are times when "just talking" isn't going to work. There is a limit, I would like to think, to torture methods, but roughing up the perpatrator a bit seems reasonable. If, in this case, the authority knows that the suspect is either the perpatrator or an accomplace that knows the whereabouts of the perep or the perp himself/herself and he/she is refusing to tell anything. That way, the aurhtorities know that in either scenario the suspect is guilty of a crime and therefore can't fight against the fact he/she was physically persuaded. What I don't think is justafiable is senseless violence, nothing more than the authority letting off steam because they can. Whether or not the suspect is guilty, there should be some moderation and constraint to physical methods.

Although it's easier to some parenta and students to choose from a set of schools to in their area, it's also a lack of freedom and could effect the child's growth and intelligence. For instance, if one student wants to go on to MIT then they probably want all they can get out of their highschool experience and they probably won't get it at a regular public school. That's not to say that their parents can pay for a Magnet or Private school, however, if they had a wide range to choose from, then they might be able to afford a lesser prep school and so on. Though school is what you make it, may be having more choices could benefit a teen ready and willing to do so.

Okay, sure, fairness and a fresh view, but say the U.S. fell into another World War and Obama had done everything and more than what he said he would and impressed us all. We would feel safer and more comfortable if he kept us going through the new crisis.

"Changing presidents...is essential." How so?

While a president may be extremely charismatic and worth what he/she says or does, it may become dangerous if someone held the presidency for too long. I understand that if the U.S., for instance, fell into another World War, and Obama was everything and more than anyone expected, it would be logical and make us feel safer if we kept him through another term or two. However, is too long too much? Take Hitler for example. He was a very charismatic and uplifting leader for the decaying and poor Germany. At the beginning, he made it seem like he could take away all of Germany's suffering, but in the end only led them to more. From then on Germany has become wary of overly charismatic leaders so as not to repeat the past. Not only that, but the time limit gives a fresh view to the US.

For one, they're here illegally. Ths U.S. has a standard set of rules for coming into the country like all, or most, developed countries have. So, therefore, they're braking our laws and if we just let them in without enforcing authroity, that gives us another tarnish to our all ready rotting "always the good guy" look. In light of the deportation maybe making a significant dent in our economy I can understand why people are reluctant, but I highly doubt that closing off that vein will do anything drastic. The U.S. all ready has many unemployed Americans as is. Plus, fewer people means less pollution.

It makes sense, I suppose, if we have a relationship in which we both profit from the export and import of our goods to have some sort of regulation on the environment of the developing country. Otherwise we may be getting contaminated goods for our uncontaminated ones. If the country really can't focus on their envrionment and instead have to focus on feeding their people, then maybe that's what we should give to them. We'll give them food supplies for, say, a precious metal or oil or something that we need that they have in abundance. That way, their people are fed, they can work on the envrionment and we still are trading goods with stronger trust in the products.

We did some bad things to get where we are today that I think are unforgetable. They had a big effect on us and will forever, but we aren't going to halt our progression. Other nations have done the same things. We had slaves, ancient Romans had slaves. We destroyed the Native American population just as Genghis Khan lead the Mongol invasions spanning from Asia across Eastern Europe. All for the sake of new land, and new power. Some things we did weren't pretty or nice and maybe there could've been a better way to go at the situation, but sacrifices are made for the betterment of a nation.

I would say that schools don't "kill" creativity per say. We're just limited and, really, only by a little. I think kids like to take it out of context, like to blow it, just to get some attention. They'll throw it at teacher's faces just to get a rise. In all honesty, we're still free to express ourselves how ever we want; may be not whenever we want and may be not everyone agrees with the way you express yourself, but we are still able to. We aren't under a dictator; that's the beauty of highschool.