Posted on 10/15/2006 3:31:37 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Nope...they were kind. She's lucky, if it had been me instead of the SS....it wouldn't have been pretty.
Yep, so typical of Dem programming from the parents. No personal responsibilities....
The parents are out there trying to mitigate the wrong doing by their daughter with being critical of how the Secret Service decides to interview the suspect.
So sad. We were at the air show today, and there was very little parenting going on there, too. What's this world coming to???
If you don't want YOUR kid questioned without you present, sign onto my website and download the Letter to the Superintendent on the Parent's page. In this age of "zero tolerance" which is another word for communism, it is imperative that you exercise your parental rights.
Methinks the parents are proud... (think Cindy Sheehan).
Daddy appears to be a lefty environmental attorney... one can only imagine where she might have picked up her political 'philosophy'.
Let him sue the school on not allowing him to exercise his parental rights to be present during a questioning...he can take that one up to the Supreme Court. The schools plea 'in loco parentiis' and that is how they get away with it.
I just love it when liberals fight each other over the unconstitutional laws they help pass. They can go at it. Let freedom reign!
"It's not the job of the SS to scare and intimidate."
You are correct. The SS should have arrested and prosecuted her. What she did was against the law.
"The SS exists to guard and investigate. These agents crossed the line."
No, they did not even get near the line. Do you really believe that investigations can take place without some scaring people? How naive.
"I disagree strongly there as well. As soon as this girl realized what she did was wrong, she removed it without any external prompting. A kid who can police herself like that is a good kid."
Are you forgetting that she is the one that put it there? The only reason she took it down was in hopes of not getting into trouble. Read what her response was when her mom first IMed her. She asked if she was in a lot of trouble. She threatened the President, which is against the law for anyone of any age, and you are justifying it.
All who threaten the President should be prosecuted, not coddled.
Another glowing example of a compassionate liberal.
"Cindy Sheehan wrote in her autobiography she fantasized killing President Bush. Now come the SS didn't question for that?"
Where is the proof that they didn't question Sheehan?
"What if her website said, "Kill Hillary?"
That is not protesting, that is a threat. Big difference.
That is not protesting, that is a threat. Big difference.
How is it different to say "Kill Bush" or "Kill Hillary" or "Kill *Anyone*?"
It's the SS job to check her out and that is what they did. They did the right thing.
Yeah, she should be languishing away in prison. That will certainly set everything right. My disgust is reaching ever new heights these days.
Let me guess, you would have roughed up a little?
"Add "liar" to the list. The Secret Service doesn't go around yelling at 14 year olds, even if they's like to."
Very true that SS do not yell at people, but most law enforcement persons I have met do talk firmly. A 14 year old who is upset might confuse firmness with anger and anger with yelling.
"How is it different to say "Kill Bush" or "Kill Hillary" or "Kill *Anyone*?"
None of the items you quoted above are protest. Every one of them are threats. The difference I was refering to was protest versus threat, not one of the above was a threat and another was not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.