Author Topic: Sacramento Teen Question by Secret Service (Read 9117 times)

trust · « **on:** October 14, 2006, 11:09:40 am »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/

What do you all think of that? I don't think the Secret Service did anything worthy of criticism, they have to handle every threat as if it's 120% serious and it's certainly possible for a 14 year old to be a danger to the President. Look at all the kids (like that 8 year old) shooting their friends and classmates...why does she think she isn't a threat because of her age? She described herself as peace-loving, bs, if she was peace-loving she wouldn't have "Kill Bush" on her MySpace. There are better ways to be politically passionate than making death threats.

I think it's funny though that she'll probably never be allowed at any event that requires secret-service clearance, whether the president is Republican or Democrat.

iago · « **Reply #1 on:** October 14, 2006, 11:22:22 am »

Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far.

I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it? I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

Newby · « **Reply #2 on:** October 14, 2006, 11:46:14 am »

I think it's ridiculous. "OH NOES, A THREAT ON THE INTERWEBS"

trust · « **Reply #3 on:** October 14, 2006, 11:55:35 am »

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 11:22:22 am

Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far.

I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it? I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

Newby · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2006, 12:01:09 pm »

Quote from: OG Trust on October 14, 2006, 11:55:35 am

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 11:22:22 am
Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far.

I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it? I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

So if a kid in Canada that uses MySpace threatens Bush, what're they gonna do?

iago · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:20:16 pm »

Quote from: OG Trust on October 14, 2006, 11:55:35 am

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 11:22:22 am
Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far.

I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it? I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

That doesn't sound right to me, because of the basis of your constitution (armed militia groups are encouraged?), but that's ok. I have a bigger question.

Is killing the president really a threat to national security? I mean, there's other people ready to take over, and it's not like she's planning a coup or something..

Chavo · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:24:26 pm »

No offense to anyone of either party, but you are going to get very biased answers to those kinds of questions from republicans and democrats.

Armin · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:28:56 pm »

What a little bitch. "OMG OMG THEY WEREN'T NICE TO ME!" I would've been pissed if I was a secret service agent, having to come all the way to California to do their job because some dumbass freshman girl decided to put a picture of herself killing Bush...

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 01:20:16 pm

Quote from: OG Trust on October 14, 2006, 11:55:35 am
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 11:22:22 am
Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far.

I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it? I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

That doesn't sound right to me, because of the basis of your constitution (armed militia groups are encouraged?), but that's ok. I have a bigger question.

Is killing the president really a threat to national security? I mean, there's other people ready to take over, and it's not like she's planning a coup or something..

iago, don't be silly.

iago · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2006, 01:49:58 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on October 14, 2006, 01:24:26 pm

No offense to anyone of either party, but you are going to get very biased answers to those kinds of questions from republicans and democrats.

Then we can pretend they wanted to kill Clinton, too. My answer would be the same either way.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2006, 02:58:16 pm »

National security cause we're without a leader for a short amount of time & then the whole country is in some state of vulnerability.

Also, its a threat...threats against the president are taken more seriously than against regular people, but if I found a MySpace that said kill (my name) I'd report that to the police & want them arrested too

Sidoh · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:01:31 pm »

I agree that this is a small threat to national security. That doesn't mean it tops North Korea or anything like that, though.

The stupid little girl was way out of line and should have never posted anything like that on public domain. What a fool.

Chavo · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:09:22 pm »

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 01:49:58 pm

Quote from: unTactical on October 14, 2006, 01:24:26 pm
No offense to anyone of either party, but you are going to get very biased answers to those kinds of questions from republicans and democrats.
Then we can pretend they wanted to kill Clinton, too. My answer would be the same either way.

I wasn't referring to Bush at all. Chances are if you ask any given Republican a question about 'National Security', freedom of speech, or constitutional rights their answer will differ consideratly from any given Democrat. Those are all topics of considerable controversy between the two parties. Personally, I prefer to not be associated with any set of ideals and vote on what I think is important, not what I think is more likely to win based on a party affiliation.

Sidoh · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:11:03 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on October 14, 2006, 03:09:22 pm

I wasn't referring to Bush at all. Chances are if you ask any given Republican a question about 'National Security', freedom of speech, or constitutional rights their answer will differ consideratly from any given Democrat. Those are all topics of considerable controversy between the two parties. Personally, I prefer to not be associated with any set of ideals and vote on what I think is important, not what I think is more likely to win based on a party affiliation.

I think the definition of existing constitutional rights is pretty objective, isn't it?

I agree with being politically independant, though. I'm generally more conservative than I am liberal, but I still don't think I'd want to be a republican.

iago · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:15:04 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 14, 2006, 02:58:16 pm

National security cause we're without a leader for a short amount of time & then the whole country is in some state of vulnerability.

Doesn't the power instantly pass to the Vice President? Or am I mistaken?

Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2006, 03:11:03 pm

I think the definition of existing constitutional rights is pretty objective, isn't it?

Not at all, I don't think.

Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2006, 03:11:03 pm

I agree with being politically independant, though. I'm generally more conservative than I am liberal, but I still don't think I'd want to be a republican.

independent*

But anyway, I agree. I think all politicians suck, the people who are good at getting votes should NOT be the people who run a country. People are too gullible. Democracy sucks.

Sidoh · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:21:16 pm »

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 03:15:04 pm

Not at all, I don't think.

That's what The Constitution exists for... $:-\$

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 03:15:04 pm

independent*

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 03:15:04 pm

But anyway, I agree. I think all politicians suck, the people who are good at getting votes should NOT be the people who run a country. People are too gullible. Democracy sucks.

Heh. It's better than communism.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:50:12 pm »

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 03:15:04 pm

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 14, 2006, 02:58:16 pm
National security cause we're without a leader for a short amount of time & then the whole country is in some state of vulnerability.
Doesn't the power instantly pass to the Vice President? Or am I mistaken?

He's gotta be sworn in & all that junk. So like 30 minutes later there is a new president.

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 03:15:04 pm

Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2006, 03:11:03 pm
I think the definition of existing constitutional rights is pretty objective, isn't it?
Not at all, I don't think.

Liberties granted in the Constitution are ALWAYS being argued. Privacy? If you're a very strict Constitutionalist, there is no Bill of Rights protected privacy.
So it just depends who is sitting on the bench regarding what is and is not a constitutional/bill of rights protection

Sidoh · « **Reply #16 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:52:49 pm »

It's written on a damn infallible (in the context it can't be changed without a bunch of procedures) document. What is there to argue about?

CrAz3D · « **Reply #17 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:57:00 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2006, 03:52:49 pm

It's written on a damn infallible (in the context it can't be changed without a bunch of procedures) document. What is there to argue about?

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

Hitmen · « **Reply #18 on:** October 14, 2006, 03:59:48 pm »

Kill George Bush.

* Hitmen ducks

Sidoh · « **Reply #19 on:** October 14, 2006, 04:02:44 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 14, 2006, 03:57:00 pm

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

Not really.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #20 on:** October 14, 2006, 04:06:22 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2006, 04:02:44 pm

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 14, 2006, 03:57:00 pm
interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

Not really.

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

Sidoh · « **Reply #21 on:** October 14, 2006, 05:06:21 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 14, 2006, 04:06:22 pm

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

I'm aware of the ambiguity.

I still think that the rights are pretty clearly defined. Arguing over what is a cruel and unusual punishment (which seems pretty intuitive to me) is not the same as arguing what should be a consitutional right.

iago · « **Reply #22 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:17:46 pm »

What about, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which is generally said as "right to bear arms". That's another interpretation that could be argued.

Yes, the most basic rights are totally objective, but how those right are interpreted or applied is often subjective and open to interpretation.

dark_drake · « **Reply #23 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:25:45 pm »

Quote from: iago on October 14, 2006, 08:17:46 pm

What about, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which is generally said as "right to bear arms". That's another interpretation that could be argued.

Yes, the most basic rights are totally objective, but how those right are interpreted or applied is often subjective and open to interpretation.

Nonsense, all rights are clear cut. My idea of these clearly defined rights is exactly the same as everybody else's. $:-\$

Eric · « **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2006, 09:12:15 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2006, 05:06:21 pm

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 14, 2006, 04:06:22 pm
what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

I'm aware of the ambiguity.

I still think that the rights are pretty clearly defined. Arguing over what is a cruel and unusual punishment (which seems pretty intuitive to me) is not the same as arguing what should be a consitutional right.

You do realize that what you may personally feel to be "cruel and unusual punishment" in our present-day environment may have been substantially different to those in the seventeenth century, correct? What you may perceive as a general consensus must cross ethnic, economic, and religious boundaries not only of the present, but of the past as well. This concept is generally taught to any first-year philosophy student...

Sidoh · « **Reply #25 on:** October 14, 2006, 10:25:06 pm »

Quote from: Lord[nK] on October 14, 2006, 09:12:15 pm

You do realize that what you may personally feel to be "cruel and unusual punishment" in our present-day environment may have been substantially different to those in the seventeenth century, correct? What you may perceive as a general consensus must cross ethnic, economic, and religious boundaries not only of the present, but of the past as well. This concept is generally taught to any first-year philosophy student...

I am (and was) aware.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2006, 05:30:12 pm »

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/13/state/n173002D95.DTL

Quote

"They yelled at me a lot," she said. "They were unnecessarily mean."

STFU stupid girl.

Quote

"She obviously is not a threat to society, if you look at her age, her family background, the cartoonish nature of the MySpace page," said her father, Jim Moose, an environmental law attorney.

...which is why your daughter isn't currently in some federal prison, duh. They investigated it to make sure it wasn't some person pretending to be a 14 year old girl.

Quote

"I wasn't dangerous. I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack — it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person," said Wilson

Peace...kill the president, same difference I spose.

iago · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2006, 05:39:29 pm »

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum. Do you think he's now a threat to national security? Hitmen has said the same thing in the past.

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of. Treason?

dark_drake · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:21:28 pm »

Quote from: iago on October 23, 2006, 05:39:29 pm

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum. Do you think he's now a threat to national security? Hitmen has said the same thing in the past.

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of. Treason?

Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:39:50 pm »

Quote from: iago on October 23, 2006, 05:39:29 pm

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum. Do you think he's now a threat to national security? Hitmen has said the same thing in the past.

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of. Treason?

She wasnt accused of anything, other than making what appeared to be (after investigation) an uncredible threat.
I'd have to help Newby/Hitmen to kill Bush before I could be an accessory. If anything you'd be hit before any of us (except maybe Newby & Hitmen)since you host the forums & provide & allow threats(credible or not) against the president of the U.S.

Quote from: dark_drake on October 23, 2006, 07:21:28 pm

Quote from: iago on October 23, 2006, 05:39:29 pm
Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum. Do you think he's now a threat to national security? Hitmen has said the same thing in the past.

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of. Treason?
Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side.

Hope he doesnt enjoy it too much

Newby · « **Reply #30 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:49:20 pm »

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 23, 2006, 08:39:50 pm

If anything you'd be hit before any of us (except maybe Newby & Hitmen)since you host the forums & provide & allow threats(credible or not) against the president of the U.S.

He lives in Canada. It's a long shot, but that's like saying they'd take out every last Iraqi kid that threatens Bush. It just won't happen. Haha.

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 23, 2006, 08:39:50 pm

Quote from: dark_drake on October 23, 2006, 07:21:28 pm
Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side.
Hope he doesnt enjoy it too much

I'll try not to. Maybe I'll just videotape it.

Hitmen · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2006, 09:29:32 pm »

Someday I hope to sodomize the president with an icepick while pelting him with dead black baby jews.

leet_muffin · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2006, 10:29:15 pm »

Quote from: Hitmen on October 23, 2006, 09:29:32 pm

Someday I hope to sodomize the president with an icepick while pelting him with dead black baby jews.

Me too.

BigAznDaddy · « **Reply #33 on:** October 23, 2006, 10:58:00 pm »

Quote from: Hitmen on October 23, 2006, 09:29:32 pm

Someday I hope to sodomize the president with an icepick while pelting him with dead black baby jews.

hahahahaha sodomize

Armin · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2006, 11:58:52 pm »

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

Newby · « **Reply #35 on:** October 24, 2006, 12:08:54 am »

Because everyone sucks. I'll merge it.

CrAz3D · « **Reply #36 on:** October 24, 2006, 01:13:27 am »

Quote from: Metal Militia on October 23, 2006, 11:58:52 pm

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

oh my poor sad little mind...I though it was familiar...but I was thinkin another site

iago · « **Reply #37 on:** October 24, 2006, 10:29:28 am »

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 23, 2006, 08:39:50 pm

She wasnt accused of anything, other than making what appeared to be (after investigation) an uncredible threat.
I'd have to help Newby/Hitmen to kill Bush before I could be an accessory. If anything you'd be hit before any of us (except maybe Newby & Hitmen)since you host the forums & provide & allow threats(credible or not) against the president of the U.S.

MySpace didn't get questioned for the girl you're talking about.

Although this might be "just" a forum, you're in a clan led by Newby who said "kill bush". I think that looks pretty bad, don't you?

If you think what happened to that girl is right, then just think how it'll look for you to refer to Newby, who has said "kill Bush" before, as your "clan leader".

Quote from: Metal Militia on October 23, 2006, 11:58:52 pm

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

Although I noticed, I figured this was an update on the story. *shrug*

dark_drake · « **Reply #38 on:** October 24, 2006, 05:37:04 pm »

Quote from: Metal Militia on October 23, 2006, 11:58:52 pm

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

I noticed it, but did it really matter?

Armin · « **Reply #39 on:** October 25, 2006, 01:23:37 am »

Quote from: dark_drake on October 24, 2006, 05:37:04 pm

Quote from: Metal Militia on October 23, 2006, 11:58:52 pm
http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.
I noticed it, but did it really matter?

No, but I was just really confused for the first couple minutes or so. I wasn't sure if I read here or somewhere else.

News:

Author Topic: Sacramento Teen Question by Secret Service (Read 9117 times)

trust

trust