Sacramento Teen Question by Secret Service

[trust]

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]

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]

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

[trust]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

Not at all, I don't think. 

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]

Not at all, I don't think. 

That's what The Constitution exists for...

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.

Heh.  It's better than communism.