Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Teen Questioned Over Bush Threats on MySpace

anabolicrhino said:
Where can I see these spoiled teens being spanked?
Click to expand...

Contact your Republican representive for the location of kinky activity near you, the liberals aren't alone to blame for the problems. :study:
 
She is no citizen, she is a child and had no basic rights under the constitution which concern adult rights. She should receive a spanking, grounding, and be told to not talk to adults (including on the internet) because children should be seen and not heard. We have a country filled with spoiled little brats because they aren't disciplined.

What do you want to bet the spoiled brat had a computer in her room, the adults had no idea what she was posting, and they had no idea she even had a myspace profile, or what it said? Parents like that shouldn't breed.
Click to expand...

:clap2:
 
shes 14. last time i checked you dont spank 14 year olds. i know that when i was 14 i certianly didnt consider myself a child. in fact i recall being quite disgusted at how little respect i got.

yes, a 14 year old does have rights, and is a citizen, whether you like it or not. a 30 year old's right to express his/her opinion on the internet is fine with me, and likewise so is a 14 year old's. the only difference between this hypothetical 30 year old and this 14 year old girl is that you take a 30 year old's threat seriously, maybe.

furthermore there was no verbal threat, just a picture on this girls myspace. it has nothing to do with parenting. if i were you, i wouldnt dictate to others who you believe does and doesnt have rights, you might find yourself on the recieving end someday and it might not seem so "ok" at that point.
 
krenalor said:
She is no citizen, she is a child and had no basic rights under the constitution which concern adult rights.
Click to expand...

That's actually incorrect. Kids have limited rights of the same kind adults do under law, some more limited than others. With regard to this specific situation LEOs are often required to go to extra lengths to make sure juveniles understand their miranda rights. Kids have fifth ammendment rights too. One of the steps an officer can take to make sure a kid is properly questioned is to do so in the presence of their legal guardian. So far as I know the standard of when Miranda has to be delivered is the same, basically upon arrest.

She should receive a spanking, grounding, and be told to not talk to adults (including on the internet) because children should be seen and not heard. We have a country filled with spoiled little brats because they aren't disciplined.
Click to expand...

True as far as it goes, but that's been the complaint of every older generation towards the younger one, and somehow the world hasn't ended yet.
 
We could certainly argue there is no reason for the discipline of children to be changed, re-inventing the wheel is not needed. I was KIDDING about the spanking, a 14 year old is to old for that. Children have very limited rights, and a PARENT is legally responsible for the 14 years old actions. So technically the parents should have been charged and arrested.
If a 14 year old thinks they are an adult they can get a job, pay rent, and act as adults and then we will treat them that way. In fact a judge will be convinced to do so and grant miranda rights to a child able to show that.
Spoiled brat describes a 14 year old that THINKS they are an adult, you lack judgement at that age (for the most part) and that is the point. You either are or aren't legally responsible for your actions you don't get to not be responsible but get the freedom, that is proof of childish thinking.
Remember parents are legally responsible for the kid, if you want to be an adult at 14 feel free to remove that responsibility from your parents. At 17 I was paying my own bills, in my own place, with my own job. My parents gladly signed paperwork allowing me to do so.
 
Apparently, 14 is old enough to learn, that there is a law against physically threatening the President in a public forum. This would still constitute an illegal act, if the girl was 18 and paying her own bills. I doubt if the girl was aware of her legal status and rights. The secret service was just following protocol. Maybe we need to breif our children on how to respond when questioned by goverment officials.
 
anabolicrhino said:
Apparently, 14 is old enough to learn, that there is a law against physically threatening the President in a public forum. This would still constitute an illegal act, if the girl was 18 and paying her own bills. I doubt if the girl was aware of her legal status and rights. The secret service was just following protocol. Maybe we need to breif our children on how to respond when questioned by goverment officials.
Click to expand...

And I guess I'm the only person even slightly disturbed that government officials are questioning children alone without guardians or representation of any kind. I have yet to hear a single LEO of any level tell me questioning kids alone is standard protocol. If a kid is detained and questioned without being mirandized and they are being questioned about a possible criminal act on their part, their rights have been violated. If the parents are to be held responsible and the kid was questioned without being mirandized then their rights have been violated.
 
Jayhawkk said:
That is because it isn't standard procedure.
Click to expand...

And I honestly don't doubt most cops wouldn't be idiots about this kind of thing, even if only to cover their own asses. But the SS being so close to Bush and his tendency to snoop first and ask questions later, justified or not, worries me. Also the reaction to the kid is worrying to me. When I was 14 I had plans to destroy the planet, open my own theme park, transport the school ******* to Jupiter, and my very own copy of The Necronomicon which I was going to use to cast a spell on this hot Spanish teacher so I could nail her. If I followed through on even some of the half baked **** I came up with as a kid I'd be in prison.
 
CDB said:
And I guess I'm the only person even slightly disturbed that government officials are questioning children alone without guardians or representation of any kind.
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. I could care less.
 
Bobo said:
Yeah, probably. I could care less.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if your kid was questioned, brought to trial and convicted and it turns out the arresting officers not only didn't let your son/daughter know they didn't have to answer questions, but pulled them out of class and iterrogated them alone with no one else present, you'd care. You may not care about a pseudo gestapo tactic used on a 14 year old, I'm sure others do.
 
CDB said:
I'm sure if your kid was questioned, brought to trial and convicted and it turns out the arresting officers not only didn't let your son/daughter know they didn't have to answer questions, but pulled them out of class and iterrogated them alone with no one else present, you'd care. You may not care about a pseudo gestapo tactic used on a 14 year old, I'm sure others do.
Click to expand...

She wasn't brought to trial, convicted, charged or anything and I have a feeling they never were going to do so when they found out that it was indeed a 14yr old.

She was questioned and if it was my daughter I would be ok with it.

But I love how you use the "gestapo" terminology.
 
Basso said:
lol, at this point I'm really not caring about this thread, I'm outta here!
Click to expand...

Thats because its much to do about nothing. A little girl posting the president getting killed then the big bad SS yelled at her and made her cry.

Big fvckin deal...
 
Gumbo said:
Is it just me or is the hatred being spewed by the lefties getting more and more disturbing?
Click to expand...

No. Being called a murderer, nazi, baby killer can only take you so far. They draw pictures now.
 
Bobo, if I came to your house and searched it without your consent and didn't charge you with anything you would be pissed i'm sure. Not that you were charged with anything or you had anything to cover but there are reasonable expectations in the US. Teens having a guardian present is one of them.

I won't use gestapo or any other terminology along those lines. What I will say is that a parent should of been afforded the right to be there.
 
Great, more hypothetical situations about "rights".

I could care less what is protocol, I don't see a problem with it all no matter how many hypothetical situatiuons you can come up with. 100% enforcement of the law has never been applied to any police force.

Instead of actually seeing the problem with a 14yr old girl posting the picture you are more concerned about protocol. You must love defense attorney's.
 
Those aren't hypotheticals because they have happened. Whether or not you care or whether or not you couldn't care less isn't the point. You have rights. If you choose to not use them is up to you but that's your call to make not someone else's.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Those aren't hypotheticals because they have happened. Whether or not you care or whether or not you couldn't care less isn't the point. You have rights. If you choose to not use them is up to you but that's your call to make not someone else's.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course they happen somewhere at sometime but NOT HERE.

Sometimes common sense and discipline of a child should override the almight protocol of the rights you speak of especially when it comes to a 14yr old child.

Nothing like making a huge deal out of questions being asked for 15 minutes.

Give me a break.
 
I'm just discussing for the sake of discussing. I haven't even seen the website or know about the incident in detail. Believe me I don't lose any sleep over this and like I said earlier I would of pulled my own kid out of class before anyone else got a hold of them. But, if my kid was at some point brought in and suspected of a crime I would like to know about it.
 
"Former Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis vetoed bills that would have required that parents give consent or be present when their children are questioned at school by law enforcement officers. A similar bill this year cleared the state Senate but died in the Assembly."

They were within the law.

I could care less because whether her rights were violated or not the underlying problem of a 14yr drawring pictures of the president being killed is still present. Instead of her parents being upset about them quesitoning her, they should be upset for the lack of parenting.
 
Bobo said:
She wasn't brought to trial, convicted, charged or anything and I have a feeling they never were going to do so when they found out that it was indeed a 14yr old.
Click to expand...

Because the government has never done stupid things like that before... Never seen kids expelled from school for making a gun with their fingers and yelling BANG. Never seen a prosecutor more interested in making a name for himself than applying some common sense. Never seen any kind of governmental over reaction of any kind...

But I love how you use the "gestapo" terminology.
Click to expand...

Because it's appropriate. If you're okay with a couple of government stooges questioning your daughter without you or anyone who gives a damn about her within shouting distance that's your business. I find that kind of nonchalant attitude toward a situation like this pretty surprising to say the least. However it turned out in the end, it's not something that should have been done to begin with. When you brush mistakes like this off simply because everything turned out okay, they start becoming routine until something doesn't turn out okay. I'm not in favor of waiting until the government screws someone over before restraining its actions. Neither were the founders, which is why there's a Bill of Rights listing certain restrictions on the government's power.

Give those rights up if you like. They matter to me.
 
I thought that this girl was questioned by the Secret Service.
not the local police. The SS(haha) are not really governed by the same rules as the local police. The SS only exist to protect the president and his family. Furthermore, this is the USA and anyone can ask anybody any question. The girl had no obligation to answer. The "protocol' that is followed is to ask a question with the preface of "its for your own protection", then most people would volunteer answers. A wise citizen would ask "am I under arrest?"
Then your miranda right would effectively begin upon a positive answer.
 
CDB said:
Because the government has never done stupid things like that before... Never seen kids expelled from school for making a gun with their fingers and yelling BANG. Never seen a prosecutor more interested in making a name for himself than applying some common sense. Never seen any kind of governmental over reaction of any kind...



Because it's appropriate. If you're okay with a couple of government stooges questioning your daughter without you or anyone who gives a damn about her within shouting distance that's your business. I find that kind of nonchalant attitude toward a situation like this pretty surprising to say the least. However it turned out in the end, it's not something that should have been done to begin with. When you brush mistakes like this off simply because everything turned out okay, they start becoming routine until something doesn't turn out okay. I'm not in favor of waiting until the government screws someone over before restraining its actions. Neither were the founders, which is why there's a Bill of Rights listing certain restrictions on the government's power.

Give those rights up if you like. They matter to me.
Click to expand...

I tend to look at what happend, not some hypothetical situation you create then complain about.

But we get your point, you are really worried about "rights". We know, its quite obvious.
 
Bobo said:
"Former Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis vetoed bills that would have required that parents give consent or be present when their children are questioned at school by law enforcement officers. A similar bill this year cleared the state Senate but died in the Assembly."

They were within the law.
Click to expand...

SS and the Treasury are federal so far as I know, and federal follows the interested adult rule I believe. Also Invalid Link Removed

I could care less because whether her rights were violated or not the underlying problem of a 14yr drawring pictures of the president being killed is still present. Instead of her parents being upset about them quesitoning her, they should be upset for the lack of parenting.
Click to expand...

Assuming there is a lack of parenting. A 14 year old doing the occasional stupid and/or direspectful thing isn't necessarily an indicator of some massive neglect on the part of the parents. Kids do stupid things sometimes. This is not an either or situation anyway. You can be concerned with both issues equally, one more or less or whatever. A fundamental concern for people's rights whether or not they've committed a crime is what distinguishes a free society from a police state.
 
Bobo said:
I tend to look at what happend, not some hypothetical situation you create then complain about.
Click to expand...

I am looking at what happened. Two (actually more considering the chain of command, which makes this even more disturbing as no one in the entire bunch apparently had a shred of sense) government stooges saw a threatening picture of Bush on MySpace of all places and pulled some 14 year old twerp out of class, after she had taken the picture down when she was informed it was a crime, and stuck her in a room and intimidated her for a while. Like I said, if you view that as appropriate behavior, legality aside, that's your business. I kind of like living in a society where that kind of thing doesn't happen to kids, and I don't even like kids.

But we get your point, you are really worried about "rights". We know, its quite obvious.
Click to expand...

Yeah. "Rights." Pesky little things. Guess we should all just learn to live without them.

anabolicrhino said:
I thought that this girl was questioned by the Secret Service, not the local police. The SS(haha) are not really governed by the same rules as the local police. The SS only exist to protect the president and his family. Furthermore, this is the USA and anyone can ask anybody any question. The girl had no obligation to answer. The "protocol' that is followed is to ask a question with the preface of "its for your own protection", then most people would volunteer answers. A wise citizen would ask "am I under arrest?" Then your miranda right would effectively begin upon a positive answer.
Click to expand...

Issue being kids and retarded people are usually afforded extra protection because they don't necessarily have the faculties to understand the extent of their rights, much less assert them while sitting under the stare of two armed government agents. It also bears on the reliability of testimony, especially from kids. Get a kid alone long enough and with little effort they'll be confessing to vacationing on Mars. They were obviously concerned with her and her actions regarding the picture, which meant they may have been pursuing a criminal charge against her, in which case she has the right (pesky thing again) to not give a self incriminating statement. A right she may not have understood. It's easy enough to get Miranda past adults without them fully understanding it, just deliver them real fast when there's a lot of distractions around. Kids would be a snap to mislead.
 
CDB said:
SS and the Treasury are federal so far as I know, and federal follows the interested adult rule I believe. Also Invalid Link Removed



Assuming there is a lack of parenting. A 14 year old doing the occasional stupid and/or direspectful thing isn't necessarily an indicator of some massive neglect on the part of the parents. Kids do stupid things sometimes. This is not an either or situation anyway. You can be concerned with both issues equally, one more or less or whatever. A fundamental concern for people's rights whether or not they've committed a crime is what distinguishes a free society from a police state.
Click to expand...


The ACLU disagrees with you.

"There is no legal requirement that parents be notified.

"This has been an ongoing problem," said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco."

Who is telling you you shouldn't be concerned? I simply stated I could care less about whether her rights were violated because I think it isn't the real problem. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact someone doens't care but thats my "right". :lol:

But you can go on about "gestapo" and
"police states".
 
CDB said:
government stooges saw a threatening picture of Bush on MySpace of all places and pulled some 14 year old twerp out of class

Yeah. "Rights." Pesky little things. Guess we should all just learn to live without them.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes, the government stooges.

Live withouth them? Hell, with your point of view that will be next week!
 
Bobo said:
The ACLU disagrees with you.

"There is no legal requirement that parents be notified.

"This has been an ongoing problem," said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco."

Who is telling you you shouldn't be concerned? I simply stated I could care less about whether her rights were violated because I think it isn't the real problem. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact someone doens't care but thats my "right". :lol:

But you can go on about "gestapo" and
"police states".
Click to expand...

And I don' care about the ACLU. Bunch of commie bastards. Your opinion is yours, mine is mine. Here's hoping you or someone you care about is never on the receiving end of a government official who doesn't care about your rights.
 
CDB said:
And I don' care about the ACLU. Bunch of commie bastards .
Click to expand...
:think: :think: :think: :think:
 
As the old saying goes "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree". In this case, I'd say the 14 yr old really doesn't have enough knowledge to form any type of political opinion except those she has heard from her parents. From the article it looks like this a close family by the way the mother texted the girl in school as soon as the SS departed the home. Granted kids do stupid things and it looks like this is just another example of that, but don't you think the parents should have been investigated more thoroughly than just being advised of the sitiuation?

As far as rights, at 14, these kids are just being introduced to real world information in school. Evident by the fact that she removed the picture when she discovered it could lead to trouble. But how many schools cover threatening the president and the bill of rights all in 1 quarter/semester. Heck the bill of rights is so complex they are still teaching/learning it in college. So, I guess in that respect, it was the parents fault for not telling their daughter to request a lawyer or parent at the onset of questioning by authorities.

But then again, under this administration they would have catagorized this as a threat to national security and said it falls under the (rights depriving) Patriot Act.

In case anybody is monitoring this site: I love GWB!!! 4 mo years!!!

Just my opinion.
 
Bobo said:
Sometimes common sense and discipline of a child should override the almight protocol of the rights you speak of especially when it comes to a 14yr old child.
.
Click to expand...

rights should never be overidden, ever.
 
jomi822 said:
rights should never be overidden, ever.
Click to expand...


Sometimes in the pursuit of a higher truth, personal rights will be tred upon., even in a democracy. This is how the system gets tested for reliability. Democratic societies acknowledge when a citizens rights have been violated. The judicial review system will provide appeasment when necessary. When "civil rights" are non- existant or not reviewed by a peer system you find yourself in a "police state" The fact that this girls story generates discussion is a good sign that we still live in a democracy. We must remain "eternally vigilent" in pusuit of democracy. The concern is when citizens don't care about the rights of others, that eventually the same appathy will be reciprocated toward you.
 
jomi822 said:
rights should never be overidden, ever.
Click to expand...

I hope to God you never have someone taken from and that person is let go because of a very small infraction in procedure that is deemed a violation of their rights.

Denfense lawyers would put you on the jury every day of the week.

We need more OJ Simpson cases.
 
Bobo said:
I hope to God you never have someone taken from and that person is let go because of a very small infraction in procedure that is deemed a violation of their rights.

Denfense lawyers would put you on the jury every day of the week.

We need more OJ Simpson cases.
Click to expand...

Definitely a problem area. But simply allowing people's rights to be violated is not the answer because the ends do not justify the means. Now that does mean you necessarily need to exclude evidence or release someone if evidence was gotten illegally. It's possible to admit evidence and punish the specific LEO(s) responsible for the violation. How violations are dealt with procedurally is arguable. That there needs to be some severe systemic disincentive for LEOs when it comes to violating people's rights whatever the situation is not arguable.
 
Fruits of the poisonous tree is what you guys are probably referring to. Anything obtained illegally can not be used as evidence and this is in place to keep people from using illegal means to obtain evidence and rely on the evidence to be the justified ends to the means.


We can argue all day and night because law is too much of a grey area to pin down any single answer. If there was something that easy the people much smarter than any of us would have figured it out by now.
 
point is what she did was stupid, and she has to face the concequences. The secret service is merly doing thei r jobs, following up another bs lead. Im sure the responses to this thread would be diff. if the kid was middle eastern, had anti-bush/america signs all over his page,lol:) but id rather have them follow up a lead even if its a 14 yr old then to not do anything at all.
 
brk_nemesis said:
point is what she did was stupid, and she has to face the concequences. The secret service is merly doing thei r jobs, following up another bs lead. Im sure the responses to this thread would be diff. if the kid was middle eastern, had anti-bush/america signs all over his page,lol:) but id rather have them follow up a lead even if its a 14 yr old then to not do anything at all.
Click to expand...

I'm nto against them following up. It's how they did it that bothers me a bit.

Jayhawkk said:
Fruits of the poisonous tree is what you guys are probably referring to. Anything obtained illegally can not be used as evidence and this is in place to keep people from using illegal means to obtain evidence and rely on the evidence to be the justified ends to the means.

We can argue all day and night because law is too much of a grey area to pin down any single answer. If there was something that easy the people much smarter than any of us would have figured it out by now.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the tree rule. Facts are facts, however they were gotten. I think specific LEOs should be punished severely for rights violations, but evidence is evidence and should be admissable no matter what in my view.
 
So what you are saying is evidence is evidence regardless of how obtained but if obtained illegally then there should be severe punishment for the LEO?

While in theory it sounds good it would be too much of an issue with the police. You would either have to pay police 3x their normal pay or expect nothing to be done while working. A severe penalty would be too harsh unless malice was proven due to the fact that mistakes happen.
 
Jayhawkk said:
So what you are saying is evidence is evidence regardless of how obtained but if obtained illegally then there should be severe punishment for the LEO?

While in theory it sounds good it would be too much of an issue with the police. You would either have to pay police 3x their normal pay or expect nothing to be done while working. A severe penalty would be too harsh unless malice was proven due to the fact that mistakes happen.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
I'm nto against them following up. It's how they did it that bothers me a bit.
Click to expand...

Seriously, all they needed to do was go talk to her and professionally represent our government.

BV
 
Well the whining liberals had there say now here is mine. Someone's bratty unsupervised kid committed a crime. Yep, lets do this by the book AND THAT INCLUDES THE PROSECUTION SIDE. File charges against the parents, they wanted lawyers involved, lets get lawyers involved in court where lawyers belong. When it costs some dumb a$$ parents a few thousand dollars and maybe some time in jail then maybe they will either quit breeding or start supervising their little brats. Now you know why that Mom let the agents talk to her kid, it was that or she would face charges and could get her day in court. The judge will surely justifiably rip Mom and Dad a new one for allowing a 14 year to post without them supervising her.
The minute a lawyer is called a whole new ball game opens up, you still want to call that lawyer knowing now charges will be filed against you the parent for the actions of your legal guardian that has to have unsupervised access to the internet because she is somehow "different" and "special" and already an adult at 14 but somhow everyone has missed it?
Then the parents will scream that the law is "unfair" because she is only a kid. Colombine happened due to kids, AND STUPID USELESS PARENTS. Don't like being held responsible for your kids action, either raise them right or don't breed. Teaching them a bunch of hock phooey liberal "values" will cost you in the end just as it should.
 
krenalor said:
Well the whining liberals had there say now here is mine. Someone's bratty unsupervised kid committed a crime. Yep, lets do this by the book AND THAT INCLUDES THE PROSECUTION SIDE. File charges against the parents, they wanted lawyers involved, lets get lawyers involved in court where lawyers belong. When it costs some dumb a$$ parents a few thousand dollars and maybe some time in jail then maybe they will either quit breeding or start supervising their little brats. Now you know why that Mom let the agents talk to her kid, it was that or she would face charges and could get her day in court. The judge will surely justifiably rip Mom and Dad a new one for allowing a 14 year to post without them supervising her.
The minute a lawyer is called a whole new ball game opens up, you still want to call that lawyer knowing now charges will be filed against you the parent for the actions of your legal guardian that has to have unsupervised access to the internet because she is somehow "different" and "special" and already an adult at 14 but somhow everyone has missed it?

The reality is that "any threat" to the President's life is more important (legally) than the implied civil rights of a 14-year old girl or even any adult citizen.


Then the parents will scream that the law is "unfair" because she is only a kid. Colombine happened due to kids, AND STUPID USELESS PARENTS. Don't like being held responsible for your kids action, either raise them right or don't breed.

How do you know if you are a good parent unless you breed?

Teaching them a bunch of hock phooey liberal "values" will cost you in the end just as it should.
Click to expand...

How can you be responcible for your children without teaching them any "values"?
 
krenalor said:
Well the whining liberals had there say now here is mine.
Click to expand...

I vote Libertarian and Republican.

Someone's bratty unsupervised kid committed a crime. Yep, lets do this by the book AND THAT INCLUDES THE PROSECUTION SIDE. File charges against the parents, they wanted lawyers involved, lets get lawyers involved in court where lawyers belong. When it costs some dumb a$$ parents a few thousand dollars and maybe some time in jail then maybe they will either quit breeding or start supervising their little brats. Now you know why that Mom let the agents talk to her kid, it was that or she would face charges and could get her day in court. The judge will surely justifiably rip Mom and Dad a new one for allowing a 14 year to post without them supervising her.
The minute a lawyer is called a whole new ball game opens up, you still want to call that lawyer knowing now charges will be filed against you the parent for the actions of your legal guardian that has to have unsupervised access to the internet because she is somehow "different" and "special" and already an adult at 14 but somhow everyone has missed it?
Then the parents will scream that the law is "unfair" because she is only a kid. Colombine happened due to kids, AND STUPID USELESS PARENTS. Don't like being held responsible for your kids action, either raise them right or don't breed. Teaching them a bunch of hock phooey liberal "values" will cost you in the end just as it should.
Click to expand...

Well, here's to hoping your perfectly raised kids never decide to do something stupid.
 
krenalor said:
Well the whining liberals had there say now here is mine. Someone's bratty unsupervised kid committed a crime. Yep, lets do this by the book AND THAT INCLUDES THE PROSECUTION SIDE. File charges against the parents, they wanted lawyers involved, lets get lawyers involved in court where lawyers belong. When it costs some dumb a$$ parents a few thousand dollars and maybe some time in jail then maybe they will either quit breeding or start supervising their little brats. Now you know why that Mom let the agents talk to her kid, it was that or she would face charges and could get her day in court. The judge will surely justifiably rip Mom and Dad a new one for allowing a 14 year to post without them supervising her.
The minute a lawyer is called a whole new ball game opens up, you still want to call that lawyer knowing now charges will be filed against you the parent for the actions of your legal guardian that has to have unsupervised access to the internet because she is somehow "different" and "special" and already an adult at 14 but somhow everyone has missed it?
Then the parents will scream that the law is "unfair" because she is only a kid. Colombine happened due to kids, AND STUPID USELESS PARENTS. Don't like being held responsible for your kids action, either raise them right or don't breed. Teaching them a bunch of hock phooey liberal "values" will cost you in the end just as it should.
Click to expand...

All I know, is that if we want to start talking about REAL threats to the President you guys had better get Blade up in that mother****er. 'Cause, seriously, I have seen about 50,000 vampires on MySpace straight bent on World Domination..And, obviously, everything any 14 year old says on there must be considered real, so call that Half-Human badass and lets get crackin!!!!

Garlic and stakes anyone??


:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top