2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

There is a difference between nudity and sexuality.  You don't have to be nude to have sex and you don't need to have sex when you're nude.  Where is the logic?

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Well, if YOU chose to keep your clothes on then you would be protected from such...this is what you have to contribute to an intelligent conversation?

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

What? That is ridiculous! No wonder Europe looks to us like the country is made of a bunch of crackpots.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Really?  THAT is your concern? This conversation shouldn't include the thoughts of the shallow... Perhaps you should turn the radio station to Z100, you know something the teenagers listen to, instead of wasting our time.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

But the real question was never really answered. Why were the doors locked? The answered was danced around and it was obvious that the people who were to occupy this particular house were not just a danger to themselves. Until its a matter of public record, what "crimes" were committed, its only natural for people (not to mention paerents) to be extremely concerned. Its human instinct to want to protect yourself and children. To override that you need to be very CLEAR as to what is going on in that house. I firmly believe that if your are deemed criminally insane because you tried to commit suicide then it is no ones business, that is to say if your mental health issues are not dangerous to anyone else. It is plainly obvious that the people that would reside in this house have commited crimes "against others". I believe that's should be the determining factor as to whether or not a sheriff should be allowed to warn others. Given the information and circumstances, I applaud his efforts.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I have been waiting for someone to say that the reason for the locked door was due to the safety of the patients themselves. I feel that they have skirted the real issue. If the doors are locked they are dangerous, simple as that and should not be allowed in our community. I have been a victim of abuse and if this would happen in my neighborhood, I would be devastated. This devastation happened in part due to people like this. Why are people talking about their freedoms and rights and comforts? Where are mine?
I have no arguement against anyone who haven't commited crimes. I would welcome a home for people who are safe to the community and certainly believe that we as a society need to understand more about mental health.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context