Quotes, Tributes and AnecdotesThe good folks over at Right Pundits posted this story in the 'Guest Blogger' department. You might want to check out the following RP offerings to score conservative points in your next argument with a liberal. * The Terrorist Surveillance Program * Barack Obama National Defense Policy * Is McCain Running Scared? Philosophically on most issues, Right Pundits is almost a twin to DBKP. Readers should enjoy their unabashedly lusty brand of conservative posts. |
In early 1977, Jimmy Carter was just settling into the White House and the conservative movement was preparing intellectually for it's moment in the sun that would come in 1980.
That occurred when Ronald Reagan was elected to the U.S. presidency and Reagan read William F. Buckley.
It's been years since a young then-liberal visited the local library every fortnight to read the latest copy of National Review to learn of the latest goings-on in the then-percolating world of conservatism.
National Review was a window into Buckley's world. It was a world of tight grammar, proper usage of English and the occasional Latin phrase which sent the reader (this one, at any rate) scurrying for a reference.
Earlier we presented "William F. Buckley: Ten Quotes to Remember Him By".
Now, a collection: a WFB hodge-podge of quotes, exchanges and pithy excerpts from writings.
In short, some moments from the life of William F. Buckley.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
--on WFB's favorite target
William F. Buckley once sent fellow author Norman Mailer a copy of his latest book. Mailer, disappointed to find that Buckley had apparently neglected to inscribe the book, promptly flipped through the index to see whether he had been mentioned. There, beside his name, Mailer found Buckley's 'inscription' - a handwritten "Hi!"
"When I began this, I said it would be a miracle if I won. After listening to my opponents, I think it would be a miracle if I lost."
--On the 1965 NYC mayor's race; Buckley was a candidate.
"On the witness stand I argued that the word "jig" could be used other than as animadversion. The feverish lawyer grabbed a book from his table and slammed it down on the arm of my chair.
"Have you ever heard of a dictionary?" he asked scornfully, as if he had put the smoking gun in my lap.
I examined the American Heritage College Dictionary and said yes, I was familiar with it.
"In fact," I was able to say, opening the book, "I wrote the introduction to this edition."
That was the high moment of my forensic life."
--WFB, National Review May 19, 2006
"I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in connection with income tax policies."
"I get satisfaction of three kinds. One is creating something, one is being paid for it and one is the feeling that I haven't just been sitting on my ass all afternoon."
--on his manic work schedule
"[S]o unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic."
--WFB on the Beatles
Conservative political pundit William F. Buckley, Jr. was once asked to appear on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In." Buckley, who had politely declined, later agreed to make a cameo appearance - after receiving the following comic telegram:
"Would you appear on the show if we flew you in on a plane with two right wings?"
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich."
--on the philosophical flexibility of socialists
"Of course, he will always tend to reach first for an anecdote. But then, so does the New Testament."
--WFB on Ronald Reagan's intellect
"Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription."
--WFB to irate reader who wrote to "cancel my subscription to National Review
In 1965, William F. Buckley ran for the office of mayor of New York City. Given the odds of his clinching a victory, Buckley's campaign was ridiculed by many political pundits, chief among them William F. Buckley.
One day a reporter asked the candidate to name the first thing he would do in the event of a victory. Buckley's reply? "Demand a recount!"
"I profoundly believe it takes a lot of practice to become a moral slob."
Gore Vidal to Buckley: "As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself."
Buckley: "Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."
--WFB to Gore Vidal in 1968.
Video: The above exchange on ABC News in 1968.
"We both acted irresponsibly. I'm not a Nazi, but he is, I suppose, a fag."
Video: Exchanges with Noam Chomsky in 1969.
--WFB on the above incident in 1985.
"We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down."
"Billboards are acts of aggression against which the public is entitled, as a matter of privacy, to be protected."
"Materialistic democracy beckons every man to make himself a king; republican citizenship incites every man to be a knight."
--WFB on the difference between a democracy and a republic.
"I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth."
"WE ARE speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen -- yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect. [...]
I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."
--From July 1, 1996 issue of National Review
For an interesting collection of WFB thoughts on marijuana and the Drug War, check out"William F Buckley, RIP".
On hearing of Buckley's demise, there were no end to eulogies and tributes. Here are what several people have said or written about WFB, either when he was living or later.
President Ronald Reagan about WFB:
"[T]he most influential journalist and intellectual of our era."
"It [The National Review] is to the West Wing of the White House what People magazine is to your dentist's office."
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard in 1999 on WFB:
"He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement. . . . For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television. "
From left writerl/blogger Rick Perlstein:
"“He did the honor of respecting his ideological adversaries, without covering up the adversarial nature of the relationship in false bonhommie. A remarkable quality, all too rare in an era of the false fetishization of "post-partisanship" and Broderism and go-along-to-get-along. He was friends with those he fought. He fought with friends. These are the highest civic ideals to which an American patriot can aspire…”
Bart Barnes, in the MSM Washington Post:
"The intellectual founder of the modern conservative movement, who helped define the movement's doctrines of anti-communism, military strength, social order and a capitalist economy"
Katharine Mieszkowski in Salon:
"Buckley's biggest achievement was revitalizing conservatism at a time when it had been marginalized in the United States for decades, since conservatives had opposed Roosevelt's New Deal and advocated isolationism before the U.S. entry into World War II. Buckley was the intellectual force behind failed U.S. presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and later the rise of President Ronald Reagan. His work incorporated the ideas of libertarian Max Eastman, economist Milton Friedman and anti-communist writers like Whittaker Chambers."
William F. Buckley
Rest in Peace.
compiled by Mondoreb
image: du
Sources:
* Why William F Buckley was My Role Model
* The War on Drugs is Lost
* William F. Buckley
* William F. Buckley: RIP Enfant Terrible
* A conservative Pioneer
* Conservative William F. Buckley, Dies at 82
* Scenic Florida quotes
* Cancel Your own goddam subscription, book review
* Modoblog
* Obituary Mambo
* William F. Buckley has went home
* William F. Buckley
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
35 Somewhat Random Comments on Montana and Secession from the US
Mostly from the AR-15 Forum
The story of the Supreme Court case, Heller v. D.C. and the Montana attorney general, Secretary of State and legislators warning the Supreme Court that if the Court finds that there is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution, is going to get interesting, to say the least.
It appears that if the Supreme Court sides with the District of Columbia in disarming gun owners and invalidating the constitutional protections contained in the Second Amendment, they would be in direct opposition to what all 50 states have guaranteed their citizens in the 50 state consitutions: the right to bear arms and protect themselves.
This has sparked questions.
If the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and it runs counter to what every single state has clearly worded as a guaranteed right in the state constitutions, written at the time those states freely joined the Union, what then?
At this point, we're not going to speculate until we do more research.
BUT that hasn't stopped others, particularly gun owners from weighing in on the consequences.
At the AR-15 Forums, a large forum for gun owners, the comments have been flying fast and furious since the news of the Montana legislators sending their warning to the Supreme Court that a finding of "collective right" would violate the compact the state signed with the US government when the state freely joined the Union.
Many of the comments there--and one in particular at DBKP--struck as as so entertaining, informative, funny or a combination of all 3, that we decided to round some up and make them into a story.
We now present a somewhat random sampling of 35 comments on the Montana story from the AR-15 forum.
"Arizona Constitution
Article 2 Section 26 - Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
--innocent bystander
"If AZ and NV go, Hoover Dam and all the power generation come with us... CA can build their own power plants."
--Gravity Tester
"I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me.”
--anjan9 (originally said by the Russian boat XO in Tom Clancy's 'The Hunt for Red October')
"The "minutemen" (or are you thinking of the Freemen?) weren't supported by the Montana state government or any allied state governments. Totally different situation. This would be like 1860/61 where people would be running back and forth choosing sides. Go read some history. There were loads of people who's families were torn apart by differences in opinion on allegiance to their state or to the imperial federal government. Lots of people from the north moved to the south specifically to join the confederate army, and vice versa.
If state governments are involved, the thing could very easily get very ugly very quickly. Montana just needs to hope some states will jump in on their side.
Edited to add: By the way... I wonder how many nukes Montana has? Just wondering.
I'm sick of the waffling pussy-ass politicians in most states. It's about time somebody _somewhere_ had the guts to call a spade a spade.
Those who think that's "crackpot" can just go on letting the shit go on in their own state and slowly become "subjects" instead of citizens. Too bad some people think standing up for what's right is "stoopid"."
--timb3
"Maybe Wyoming could secede as well? President Cheney!"
--steve in Washington
"So, if all of you ARFCOMers move to Montana after they secede, would the US respond militarily and the handful of armchair comandos have to face the US Army? That would suck balls."
--70satvert
One comment in particular was extremely pertinent to the discussion. www.potowmack.org/196stcon.html Alabama Constitution art. I, § 26: -That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Alaska Constitution art. I, § 19: -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. Arizona Constitution art. 2, § 26: -The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Arkansas Constitution art. II, § 5: -The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Colorado Constitution, art. II, § 13: -The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called to question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Connecticut Constitution, art. I, § 15: -Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Delaware Constitution, art. I, § 20: -A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Florida Constitution, art. I, § 8: -The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state Constitution, art. shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. Georgia Constitution, art. I, § I, para. VIII: -The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Hawaii Constitution, art. I, § 15: -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. Idaho Constitution, art. I, § 11: -The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying the weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, not prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Illinois Constitution, art. I, § 22: -Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Indiana Constitution, art. I, § 32: -The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Kansas, Bill of Rights § 4: -The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Kentucky Bill of Rights, § I, para. 7: -All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: . . . Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. Louisiana Constitution, art. I, § 11: -The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Maine Constitution, art. I, § 16: -Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Massachusetts Constitution, art., Declaration of Rights, pt. I, art XVII: -The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence [sic]. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Michigan Constitution, art. I, § 6: -Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Mississippi Constitution, art. 3, § 12: -The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of this home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Missouri Constitution, art. I, § 23: -That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Montana Constitution, art. II, § 12: -The right of any person to keep and bear arms in defense on his own home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Nebraska Constitution, art. I, § 1: -All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are. . .the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such right shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Nevada Constitution, art. 1, § II, para. 1: -Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. New Hampshire Constitution, art. part 1, art. 2-a: -All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state. New Mexico Constitution, art. II, § 6: -No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. North Carolina Constitution, art. I, § 30: -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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and government by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statues against that practice. North Dakota Constitution, art. I, § 1: -All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are. . .to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Ohio Constitution, art. I, § 4: -The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Oklahoma Constitution, art 2, § 26: -The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislation from regulating the carrying of weapons. Oregon Constitution, art. I, § 27: -The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Pennsylvania Constitution, art. I, § 21: -The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Rhode Island Constitution, art. I, § 22: -The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. South Carolina Constitution, art. I, § 20: -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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be government by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. South Dakota Constitution, art. VI, § 24: -The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Tennessee Constitution, art. I, § 26: -That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense Constitution, art.; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with the view to prevent crime. Texas Constitution, art. I, § 23: -Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Utah Constitution, art. I, § 6: -The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 16: -That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State-and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Virginia Constitution, art. I, § 13: -That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Washington Constitution, art. I, § 24: -The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, by nothing in the section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. West Virginia Constitution, art. III, § 22: -A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Wyoming Constitution, art. I, § 24: -The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. --kissfan |
"Texas can, Texas has it in the State constitution " The right to succeed""
--point target, on the illegality of states seceding from the union
"Please cite which clause. I've read the Texas Constitution and cannot seem to find it. In fact, Article I, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution seems to state just the opposite:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self government, unimpaired to all the States.
Perpetuity means forever, in case you were not sure."
--PAEBR332
"My reading of the Statehood contract, if it was anulled, is that it would simply revert Montana to a US Territory, eliminating all Federal tax revenues from the state. That would be perfectly legal, if the contract is held as valid. As such, Federal revenue or "tax" collecting agencies such as the IRS, BATFE, and Social Security administration would not be welcome any longer. Of course that also means MT would not get Federal monies for Highways, schools, law enforcement etc anymore. It would not become a separate country, but would have much greater leeway in governing itself. It would become the "US Territory of Montana". JMHO."
--_dr
"Let's join our Montana brethren! Uphold the constition!"
--gdblair
"I pity all you nay sayers who would rather live as slaves than die defending your rights. So what of MT would be obliterated if they seceded? We would die fighting for our rights. As long as we didn't kill innocent civilians left and right we would be on the level of the early American revolutionaries."
--bodacious2182
"I make damn good chicken wings. I can open up a chicken wing joint. We will have to concentrate on getting nukes, a professional football team, and a quality first rate beer. You have to have at least two of these to call yourself a country."
--colklink, on Montana seceding.
"I still think North Idaho, Eastern Washington, and Montana need to form their own state."
--florg
"Thing I never understood is, can't states enact a Constitutional amendment on their own? *dig dig dig* Yes they can."
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
"So why don't they? And I'm not thinking about this because of gun rights, but all the other crap the federal gov does, like threatening to withhold use federal tax revenue to coerse the state to comply with their (congress') will."
--NimmerMehr
"Seriously guys, if you want to move up to Montana, I will help you do the legwork. I have been advocating moving out of socialist states. Yes the pay is lower, yes it gets F00king cold but you know what, I like having my liberty and freedom more than I like money."
"Starting to hit the local talk radio stations here in MT. Overwhelmingly positive. Only a few Judas Goats fighting for socialism. Amazing how it hasn't hit the national news."
--Elcope
"Well OKLAHOMA is SAFE
Section II-26: Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but
nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from
regulating the carrying of weapons."
--fister
"Montana rocks!!!! I could see some states following Montana. Maybe Indiana, doubtful."
--plucas
"It would be the safest place on earth. Oh, and 100% zombie free."
--Silent Type
"Justice Ginsberg responded immediately after waking up and hearing the news.
"Kill all white Christian males, their wives and any Indians that still think they are allowed to hunt. Send the children to re-education camps. White kids will serve as helpers. And we can send the brown people up there. Is that bitch O'Connor around to complain?"
She then fell back to fall asleep re-reading the NYT article on her appointment."
--Pat, comment on DBKP story, "Montana to Secede: Montana Legislators Warn Supreme Court Not to Violate Compact over gun Rights"
"Those politicians are Barry Goldwater Conservatives. You cannot find any of those in the Northeast. You can still find some of them in the South."
--C-4, in response to the comment, "Montana legislators have a set of big ones. It's about time politicians somewhere, anywhere stood up for individual rights being taken away."
"the thoughts of the Montana Militia battling the US would be so fucked. I would think that the soldiers would know right from wrong and lay down thier arms and release Montana to its Destiny. I am all for smaller govt. I think states should have more power than they do. the FED GVT is definitely on my short list."
--Gary_P
"So thirty other states are pushing for the individual right interpretation? Nice. I wonder if any are going to step up and go as far as Montana has?"
--Swindle1984
"I don't know, but I hope Alabama joins the new confederacy. If not, I'm moving to Montana. I am SO glad the folks out in that state have shown that there are still some people in this country who love and support the original intent of the constitution and bill of rights. FINALLY, they have proven to me that I was wrong. I thought nobody in this country had the balls to stand up for what's right anymore, but it looks like MONTANA still stands for what's right. Good on 'em for it!!!"
--timb3
"Damn. And here I never thought Id move outa New England again. It will be interesting to see what transpires after Heller is decided."
--ultramagbrion
"Meh...I'm not too big on moving to Montana. I think I'll stick around down here in AZ. Maybe I can run some interference or mail care packages to my comrades in arms to the north?"
--mpMoody
"Montana, the Dakota's, Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, Kansas, then of course Kentucky with West Virginia, maybe Tennessee, eventually Georgia, Florida. Fuck the Liberals would be shitting themselves."
--RetroRevolver77
"Western Canada might well join us. A lot of them are as sick of Ottawa as we are of Washington D.C."
--jnojr
"yes. Ottawa keeps stealing cash and running them into the ground over their oil sands. Ottawa gives nothing in return. They're a parasite. I think this is looking pretty good for us if shit goes south with Heller. There has been a lot of talk about secession from Western Canada for a while now."
--Ale
"Interesting. Wouldn't the federal government effectively crush any attempt at secession? And a friend pointed out to me: isn't this sedition?"
--103
"It is in no way sedition. They are stating that if the contract is violated, they will take appropriate moral and legal action."
--RockHard13F
"Dang for Utah..Sec. 3. [Utah inseparable from the Union.] The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
But we also have it.
Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
Edit to add newer version of our right to bear arms. Old version said nothing about an individual right."
--RckClimber
"Wow! Montana has more balls than any other state in the Union! I believe that I would try to move there if it did secede.
I wonder if China and Russia would recognize Montana's independence? I would think it would be highly, highly likely they would. One or more states withdrawing from the Union would be the biggest loss of face for the USA since the Civil War. If the USA tried to take back Montana by force, I would imagine that China and Russia would try their best to supply arms and aid to Montana (too bad Montana doesn't have any coast line)... I hope all you guys in Montana like AKs and RPGs!
Unfortunately, there would be no way that Montana alone could defeat the USA in open conflict. The only trump card is if Montana could retain functional control of any remaining nuclear silos."
--Shrike37
"If the SC really does make a "collective rights" interpretation, and Montana secedes, I'll mail my stripes to the President. He can keep them."
--STG77
"Indiana BOR: Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
--BlackDog714
"Does MT have an Ammunition Supply Point? Not much advantage in having M1 tanks if the ammunition for them is stored at the tank range in Gowan Field, Idaho.
The other problem is that once the unit returns to the US, they get raped. This happened to us: All our M-4s and PVS-14s immediately got stripped from us upon our return, and sent to a deploying unit."
--Manic Moran
"Samuel Adams said something like what you just said back in the 1770's when the nay sayers (then known as loyalists) were crying "You can't do this - it'll never work! Britain is the greatest military power on earth! You're crazy!!!"
His comment: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"."
--timb3
There you have it: a sampling of what gun enthusiasts, at least at the AR-15 site, have to say about the upcoming Supreme Court case of Heller v. D.C.
Are they right?
Are they wrong?
More importantly, are they entertaining?
What do you think?
by Mondoreb
images:
* myfortressofsolitude
* codeodor
Sources:
* AR-15 Forums
* Montana to Secede: Montana Legislators Warn Supreme Court Not to Violate Compact over gun Rights
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Who is the Mysterious Video Commenter?
More Mystery!
Vicki Iseman Bio Returns to Alcalde & Fay Website!
Who is EllaLohan?
How did she know about Vicki Iseman and John McCain before the New York Times published the story?
Very mysterious.
EllaLohan is the name of an apparent video fancier who--weeks before the New York Times released its story about Republican presidential candidate John McCain's alleged affair with Telcom lobbyist Vicki Iseman--was dropping hints of the affair in comments affixed to videos on sites scattered around the Internet.
Mysterious.
She hinted at the relationship between Iseman and McCain which is an " an angle not even Drudge took when it reported on the lobbying angle between Iseman and McCain months ago," as reported on Radar this evening.
The Radar piece tracks some EllaLohan comments:
Here's what EllaLohan wrote on a YouTube video posted by Senator McCain's campaign: "EllaLohan (4 weeks ago): John McCain plus lobbyist Vicki Iseman equals trouble for Republicans. Just ask the New York Times."
Then EllaLohan popped up elsewhere on YouTube with a similar comment for an anti-McCain video: "EllaLohan (1 month ago): i've heard from a bunch of my d.c. friends that mccain is doing special favors for a female lobbyist, who's returning the favor, if you catch my drift. this is the story that his lawyers are trying to prevent the new york times from writing. he's a crook just like the rest of the politicians."
Ella has some knowledge of the coming John McCain-Vicki Iseman story. The question is: How did she know?
The only info found on the mysterious EllaLohan's YouTube profile is her gender—female—and age—40.
Is she an insider who couldn't resist hinting at what she really knew or Drudge clicker with a keen ability to read between the lines? Or better still a Times employee dissatisfied with the paper's hold on the article? Attempts to reach EllaLohan have not been successful.
DBKP attempted to track down EllaLohan.
Attempts by DBKP to contact her have, so far, proved fruitless.
And that's kinda mysterious.
Ella also commented on a video by Electric Light Orchestra last week, but there was no politics in that one. She wrote, "It is the Sainte-Chapelle, a 13th Century royal chapel built in Paris under Louis IX."
Not so mysterious on that one.
But here's a several comments she posted--weeks before the story broke--that we were able to run down on videos sites.
On youTube (from a cached copy of the page):
EllaLohan Jan. 23 (7 hours ago)
John McCain plus lobbyist Vicki Iseman equals trouble for Republicans. Just ask the New York Times.
For this comment, Ella's comment received a -1 from another reader.
On video site, YouTobe
EllaLohan (20 hours ago)
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...
This comment is nowhere to be seen now, but is available in a cached copy.
Posted on a video site Video Momentum en video.es
> EllaLohan dijo el 26-01-08 a las 23:16:
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...
Posted on TechVidSite, on a video entitled, "Mitt Surfing"
EllaLohan (January 26, 2008 at 10:14 pm)
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...
The comment is now gone, but again, it can be seen on a cached copy of the site at the time of the comment.
At funingames:
( 2 weeks ago by EllaLohan). i've heard from a bunch of my dc friends that mccain is doing special favors for a female lobbyist, who's returning the favor, ...
More EllaLohan "insight":
TechVidSite.com - Web Ad: Mittsurfing (http://www.techvidsite.com/video/EgbQviUqndg)
EllaLohan (January 26, 2008 at 10:14 pm)
Ask John McCain about his lobbyist "friend" Vicki Iseman. I dare you...
So who is EllaLohan?
Is she someone who dug up the info on Iseman and her long-standing relationship with John McCain after reading a December 20 2007 Drudge report posting?
Is she Marilyn W. Thompson, the Times reporter on the Iseman-McCain story who was reportedly so upset at the Times sitting on the story that she left and is heading back to the Washington Post?
Is Thompson a video buff?
Is she interested in Mitt Romney windsurfing videos?
Will EllaLohan reveal more about how she knew what she knew when she knew it?
Will she leave the answer to that question posted on a video?
We will probably never know the answers or the identity of the mysterious EllaLohan.
And that's probably just the way she'd want it.
Vicki Iseman Alcalde & Fay website bio and picture update: The information on lobby firm, Alcalde & Fay's website about partner, Vicki Iseman, has now reappeared. The information disappeared from the A&F site shortly after the New York Times story appeared on the Times website. Numerous sites had screenshots of the bio and picture of Iseman, however. Another mysterious occurrence. |
DBKP Political Scandal Library Over 40 DBKP stories and videos on political scandals of the 2008 presidential candidates. Included are stories on Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. |
by Mondoreb
images:
* hermansgallery
* quizilla
Sources:
*
* funingames
* Anonymous Poster Had the goods on McCain, Times
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Some times to keep in mind and ponder for 'Megan Had it Coming' blog-watchers.
Time Elapsed Sine the Megan Had it Coming Blog published its first post on November 18, 2007 at 1:01 pm.
Time Elapsed since the following post appeared on the "Megan Had it Coming" blog.
[at 4:53 am EST December 7, 2007]: 11 hours 30 minutes]
K said...
FOR ALL OF YOU OUT HERE THAT THINKS THIS ISN'T LORI DREW,I HATE TO BREAK THE NEWS TO YOU BUT IT IS.I TALKED TO A FAMILY MEMBER WHO SAID THAT WHEN LORI WROTE THIS SHE THOUGHT PEOPLE WOULD BE UNDERSTANDING ONCE THEY HEARD HER SIDE OF THE STORY,SHE DIDN'T EXPECT TO GET THE BACK LASH THAT CAME AND IS STILL COMING.SHE HAS DECIDED TO LET PEOPLE VENT AND IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO HER FAMILY THEY WILL HAVE SOMEWHERE TO START(THIS BLOG LIST).
December 6, 2007 5:24 PM
NUMBER OF COMMENTS on 'Megan Had it Coming' BLOG [4:35 am EST 12-07-07]: 2845
Blogger.com, which houses the blog and lists "impersonation" as one of the things banned from the site, said it has no information that would call into question the authenticity of the "Megan Had It Coming" site.
"We take violations of Blogger's policy very seriously as such activities diminish the experience for our users," a spokesman for Google, Blogger's parent company, told FOXNews.com.
"Once we are notified about a blog that impersonates a person, we act quickly to remove it. We have not received an impersonation claim to date from the individual allegedly being impersonated."
As we said before, we'll wait and see what happens.
Meanwhile, the numbers accumulate.
by Mondoreb
[image:dkimages]
Sources:
Megan Had it Coming, Lori Drew: What Her Lawyer Says, What Google Says
Megan Had it Coming Blog Still Going Strong
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Part III on the continuing debate that broke out on the blog "Megan Had it Coming" between the blog's author--who first claimed to be "Kristen" and then yesterday published a post "I'm Lori Drew"--and readers who read and commented.
Is it really Drew? We don't know yet. We're still trying to find out though.
In the meantime, read and then decide.
--BREAKING: Drew's Lawyer: Drew Knew, Didn't Stop It-Video Report
Compiled by Little Baby Ginn
notes: Mondoreb
[Image:i.imdb.com]
Sources:
Comments - Megan Had it Coming - "I'm Lori Drew"
DBKP - Lori Drew or Internet Troll?
DBKP - A Conversation Between Lori Drew and Internet Commenters
DBKP - Lori Drew Author of 'Megan Had it Coming' Blog?
MEGAN MEIER, LORI DREW, MYSPACE SUICIDE LIBRARY:
DBKP MySpace Suicide Library
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Megan Meier MySpace Suicide: Conversation Between Fake Lori Drew & Internet Commenters, Part I
0 comments
Are we seeing a conversation between Lori Drew, Internet hoaxer, and hundreds of Internet surfers?
Or is this another hoax?
In either case, the reading is riveting. On one side is the author of the 'Megan Had Coming' Blog, which appeared on the weekend the Megan Meier story broke across the country.
Originally, the author identified herself as "Kristen", supposedly an acquaintance of Megan Meier, before the 13-year-old committed suicide in 2006. The author then posted, what she claimed, was a "true picture of Megan".
---BREAKING: 12-4-07 2:00 pm EST
Drew's Lawyer: Drew Knew, Didn't Stop It VIDEO REPORT
NOW the same blog, after largely being inactive, has another post. This one is titled "I'm Lori Drew". It purports to be from the hoax-instigating mother, Lori Drew.
Is it?
Is "Kristen" really Lori Drew?
In our earlier story, "Lori Drew, Author of 'Megan Had it Coming' blog? , we reported on the "I'm Lori Drew" post.
There are now over 800 comments to that post at Megan Had it Coming, as well as a running verbal battle between the post's author and Internet commenters.
Once again, is this Lori Drew?
We can't know if it really is or if it's the elaborate work of a "troll", claiming to be Ms. Drew.
The timing of the posts argue against a troll. If it had been someone seeking attention, rather than justification for their actions, the stories would have been posted before this--at the height of press attention and the reactionary outrage.
We present the first in a running commentary between the author claiming to be Lori Drew and her readers.
Anonymous said...
Wrong is wrong, whether or not it's technically legal. You victimized a person a quarter of your age and you feel not one iota of remorse. just relief that you won't be charged and resentment that the rest of the world won't just let it go.
December 3, 2007 10:22 AM
You have it coming said...
You are one sick, twisted woman. Don't cry victim when you have a blog called "magen had it coming". Give me a break. You brought all of this on yourself by misleading someone who by your own admission had "issues" but you continued to do it anyway. You, your daughter, your tdmp worker all deserve whatever hard times come upon. My only regret is that your husband, if he knew nothing about it, will be guilty by association. In fact maybe he may think about divorcing you, since you yourself seem to have the same dark side that Megan had.
December 3, 2007 10:31 AM
Kelly said... If you had been 15 when you did all this, I would have understood. I would have had the reaction I think you intended when you wrote this.
But you were not 15. You were giving a 13-year-old girl a "taste of her own medicine." Which means you, a grown woman who is supposed to help her own 13-year-old grow up, thought it was perfectly acceptable to act like a 13-year-old herself.
I think you believe that people care what Megan did, how innocent she was or was not. I don't. I think most people think there is nothing a 13-year-old girl could do that warrants a grown adult initiating a set of events intended to harass and bully her.
Your explanation is the equivalent of "a ten-year-old bully beat up my eleven-year-old on the playground, so my 35-year-old husband beat the crap out of that ten-year-old." Because you knew that Megan suffered from depression. You knew that emotionally, she was weaker than you and weaker than your daughter. Yet you chose to take advantage of that weakness, and justify that by saying "she started it."
I think you need help. Your explanation is far worse than I had anticipated. I had reserved judgment believing that perhaps you had nothing to do with the bullying. Perhaps you already felt guilt and remorse. What you wrote here is far, far worse than I could have imagined.
and by the way, people do not have to be unbalanced to destroy a foosball table that belongs to a GROWN ADULT who bullied their daughter. Unbalanced, they would have done far worse. I think they showed amazing restraint.
December 3, 2007 10:31 AM
Anonymous said... Those responding should be aware that this woman is baiting you to respond in a mean way because she plans to use the new law to pursue YOU. Ooooops, outted again Mrs. Drew.
December 3, 2007 10:35 AM
Megan Had It Coming said...
YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO ME! It's not like we set out to "beat up a 10 year old." Just to give her a taste of what she was doing to others. BUT IT GOT OUT OF CONTROL WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND????
The only thing worse than the media is the mob mentality shown on these 1,000+ comments. People don't listen, they don't think, they don't analyze, they don't understand.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD I DIDN'T KILL MEGAN I DID WHAT ANY REASONABLE PARENT IN MY POSITION WOULD HAVE DONE WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS????
December 3, 2007 10:35 AM
Dee said...I'M SORRY. Lori, say it. I'M SORRY.
December 3, 2007 10:40 AM
Anonymous said... You are one sick bitch. Goddamn you.
December 3, 2007 10:43 AM
Anonymous said... Ok, this is the real problem. kids at that age are cruel, we all went through it, we've all seen it, we've all experienced it. You are an adult with a developed mind and the ability to understand where your actions may lead. Most 13 year olds can't think past next week let alone understand the real pain they inflict, but you can. Also to pretend to be someone else and say she "had it coming"....my god what even justifies that? Does any child deserve to be ridiculed or slandered against? No, but it happens and thats life in the awkward teenage years. Its about communication with your kids about even though what other kids say and how hurtful things are, none of it really matters. Although most teenagers think this is a line of shit, which seems like it can be at times. But on the flip side no adult or parent should ever attack any child mentally, which is what you did. You may not have typed the key strokes, but you were the mastermind behind them. Aside from the fact she was clinically depressed, something you knew. You're extremely lucky no charges will be brought, but whats worse, prison or the stigma of having the blood of a child on your hands? Guess only you will know that for the rest of your life. All the verbal attacks and actions by the community you brought on upon yourself, you made your bed and now you must lie in it. Nothing you can say will EVER sway the fact that you started a my-space page to enter into communications with a child with the sole purpose to trick her. Its to bad someone had to die, what if it was your little girl hanging in her closest...what would you do then?
December 3, 2007 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...
If you feel badly about what happened, about the fact that a young girl took her life, that two parents lost a daughter, why would you name your blog "Megan had it coming" that sounds to me like you wanted it to happen and that you don't feel regretful that it went the way it did. If you knew the girl was unstable why would you destroy her self esteem further? You seem happy and smug about the whole situation... not like someone who made a mistake and took it too far. You should be ashamed of yourself and your children should be taken away from you so they can have someone that will teach them to live a good life instead of one of revenge and spite.
December 3, 2007 10:44 AM
Bob said... So let's get this straight. You're a mature, reasonably intelligent, presumably educated adult. You knew Megan was a mentally unstable adolescent who often displayed extreme unreasonable reactions. And you deliberately concocted a scenario that would result in this girl's public humiliation. You may not be technically guilty of murder, and Internet harassment may not be illegal in Missouri. But you certainly are guilty of intentional depraved indifference. You may not have wanted Megan to kill herself, but you clearly wanted to cause her harm. Your actions were clearly a cause that had the effect of Megan's suicide, however much you may wish to deny it. I hope no violence comes against you. However, I believe your fate will be to lose your business and your husband's, and you will be a pariah for years. And I think you deserve that fate.
December 3, 2007 10:45 AM
You have it coming said... To state you had no direct role in Megan's suicide proves you are a sociopath. You actions of creating the Myspace account, allowing other the ability to post message from it, directly lead to Megan taking her own life.
You also seriously need parenting classes. No reasonable parent would try to dupe a 13 year old girl with the help of her daughter and a temp worker by pretending to be a 13 year old boy. Then bring others into the scam once it was exposed so they could also try to enact mob bullying. You are reaping what you have sewn.
Considering that after the suicide you tried to bury it all, deleting the Myspace account, telling people to keep quite, etc... would indicate a criminal conspiracy had certain circumstances been different.
December 3, 2007 10:46 AM
Dee said...
Also, if this was all done because you had such a problem with internet bullying and rumors, then why DO internet bullying and rumors? If you thought her behavior was so wrong, then why would you do it and encourage others to also? Either lying and bullying are wrong or they are not. Everyone seems to know the answer to these questions but you.
December 3, 2007 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...
"I DID WHAT ANY REASONABLE PARENT IN MY POSITION WOULD HAVE DONE"
No, you did not. Any reasonable parent would have told their child that relationships change and that if they were really hurt by those changes that they could come to their parent and talk about it. No reasonable parent would do the heinous things you have done, then attempt to demonize the victim and thier family, then brag about getting off scot-free.
December 3, 2007 10:49 AM
Anonymous said... How old are you? Great work, justifying how you, as an adult, bullied a teenage girl- and not even feeling sorry at all for her death. Your daughter must be so proud of you.
December 3, 2007 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...This latest post raises an interesting question if you are truly Lori Drew.
If your relationship with the Meier family had turned so acrimonious, why did you ask their favor in storing the Foosball table for Christmas?
That doesn't seem to add up in your "version" of the story.
December 3, 2007 10:51 AM
Anonymous said... Someone tell me the Meiers are going to file a civil suite against these people...
December 3, 2007 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...The title of this blog says it all: "Megan had it coming."
Wow. You are possibly the most callous person I have ever heard about. I am amazed that you can justify your actions as a parent and adult. This is behavior that can be expected of a teenager, but for a parent, it's just sad. You set a fine example for your daughter!
December 3, 2007 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...
No "reasonable" parents would set out to give a 13 year old girl a taste of her own medicine. Nor would a "reasonable" parent set up a blog entitled "meganhaditcoming". It's disturbing that you would ever have the lack of judgment to go through with this harassment in the first place. Perhaps it's even more disturbing that you have set about trying to justify your actions. You place the blame on Megan's mental state, but that just makes it even more horrifying that you would treat a mentally unstable child in such a cruel way. I have my doubts over the legitimacy of this blog, but if any of this is actually written by Lori Drew, I am deeply disturbed by your lack of remorse and hope that somehow justice is served.
December 3, 2007 10:56 AM
Anonymous said... GOOD GOD WOMAN. How many fake online identites, myspaces, blogs do you have?????
December 3, 2007 10:57 AM
Megan Had It Coming said... YOU PEOPLE STILL ARENT LISTENING!!!!!
Any reasonable parent would have told their child that relationships change and that if they were really hurt by those changes that they could come to their parent and talk about it.
It wasn't just a friendship going sour. Megan was systematically harassing and manipulating my daughter! Separating them was not enough. What would you have done? You can't go to the police, the other parents won't listen, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE??
I did the only thing I could do. Unfortunately, Megan chose to make this a tragedy for everyone involved by killing herself.
December 3, 2007 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...
You knew Megan had problems or was troubled. Instead of using the fake profile to do this kind of damage why didn't you try to convince her to get help and become a better friend to those she had upset? I do not wish anything bad upon you but what goes around comes around!
December 3, 2007 11:01 AM
Megan Had It Coming said...
why didn't you try to convince her to get help and become a better friend to those she had upset
YOU THINK I DIDNT TRY???? I'm not one to parent others' kids but I tried talking to Megan on several occasions when her behavior disturbed me. She blew me off. She accused me of trying to sabotage her friendship. Instead of listening, she became angry. Just like her parents.
December 3, 2007 11:05 AM
Dee said... If you truly believe that "systematically harassing and manipulating" is so wrong, then WHY DO YOU DO IT?
December 3, 2007 11:06 AM
You have it coming said... "You can't go to the police" You must be the most ignorant person capable of blogging. The police are your second step in any situation between two children after confronting the parents about any problem. But you instead resort to your own version of internet vigilantism. I said it before; you are reaping what you have sewn.
December 3, 2007 11:07 AM
Is this Lori Drew?
Surely no one could be this callow and petty.
But then, surely no one would set up an account on MySpace for the purpose of the online harassment of a 13-year-old neighbor girl she'd known was suffering from depression.
Surely, no one would file destruction of property charges against the suffering parents of the victim, upon learning of their reactionary destroying of a foosball table.
Surely.
Everyone will have their own opinion. One opinion here: it's probably Drew, if the reports of "no remorse", by neighbors who knew Drew longer and observed during the last year, are to be believed.
Maybe her advertising business is suffering from a loss of revenue and she now feels it's time to answer some of her critics.
This is Part I. More to follow.
by Mondoreb & LBG
[image:fairieworld]
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page
You are absolutely unbelievable. An absolute piece of work. I hope you spend the rest of your life alone and destitute.
December 3, 2007 11:29 AM
I hope someday you realize that you instigated this situation. Your post did nothing but convince people that you are ruthless and immature. You hurt someone. And she was so hurt that she ended her life. One of my family members committed suicide, and it is something that I will never cope with. It's not a car accident, it's not cancer....someone was so SAD and helpless that they took their own life. You need to realize that you pushed someone that was vulnerable!
December 3, 2007 11:29 AM
Having conversations that were sexual for a 13 year old? How is that monitoring for cyberbulling?
GODDAMN YOU I AM SO SICK OF THIS LIE! I didn't engage in anything sexual. Megan tried to initiate sex talk and I backed away from it. I NEVER ENGAGED IN ANYTHING LIKE THAT. So stop spreading this lie.
December 3, 2007 11:29 AM
It's not fair to put that on me. I didn't know Megan would kill herself. No one suspected Megan would kill herself. If you blame me then you have to blame Megan's parents, too. They were closer to Megan. THEY WERE HER PARENTS. And she still managed to kill herself. What does that say? Does it say they're bad parents, too? No. It says that no one could have predicted Megan's suicide. Not Tina, not Ron, not me.
Lori, a drunken driver does not intentionally set out to kill a carload of prom going teens. He is just driving home. That doesn't make him any less responsible.
December 3, 2007 11:29 AM
GODDAMN YOU I AM SO SICK OF THIS LIE! I didn't engage in anything sexual. Megan tried to initiate sex talk and I backed away from it. I NEVER ENGAGED IN ANYTHING LIKE THAT. So stop spreading this lie.
Heavy makeout sessions? Not a lie, honey. You may not want to see it this way...but it doesn't change what it was.
December 3, 2007 11:31 AM
Okay--place the suicide completely aside for now.
You baited and misled a depressed 13-year-old for weeks, eventually culminating in an emotional collapse.
Murderer? No, you're a torturer.
December 3, 2007 11:31 AM
Fine, you didn't mean to kill her? Do drunk drivers mean to kill people?
It doesn't matter if your malicious intent was to just make her miserable or to push her off the edge, you still did it. Show some regret you heartless woman.
December 3, 2007 11:32 AM
You not only victimized a girl who is the same age as your own daughter, you victimized someone who you KNEW was suffering from mental illness. What's wrong with you???? You are a child abuser...I just have to wonder how innocent your daughter really is, was she being bullied by other CHILDREN, was she an innocent victim, or does she take after you? Kids have a way of working out their differences for themselves, it's a part of growing up....are you going to fight all her battles for her, pick her husband for her, sleep with him too? You are a dangerous woman and no child should ever be allowed near you...including your own! The high school called Mrs Drew, they want their robe back..your youth is over, you can't get it back living through your daughter!
December 3, 2007 11:32 AM
One of my family members committed suicide, and it is something that I will never cope with. It's not a car accident, it's not cancer....someone was so SAD and helpless that they took their own life.
I'm very sorry for your loss, but you have to understand that Megan suffered from clinical depression for which she took medication. Her depression wasn't psychological, it was chemical. That means there is truly no way to know WHY she killed herself. Maybe it was the final myspace comments. Maybe it was her own mother ignoring her. Maybe she skipped her medication recently. Maybe that FDA warning that anti-depressants can have suicidal effects on children and teens should have come out a couple of months earlier. You can't place blame on others when someone commits suicide.
December 3, 2007 11:33 AM
Lori, a drunken driver does not intentionally set out to kill a carload of prom going teens. He is just driving home. That doesn't make him any less responsible.
Bingo.
Do you want the world to stop hating you?
Apologize, instead of defending yourself through pointing the blame at a 13-year-old. Apologize to the Meiers. Admit that you were wrong, horribly, terribly wrong, and that had you acted like an adult, none of this would have happened.
That's a start.
December 3, 2007 11:35 AM
You baited and misled a depressed 13-year-old for weeks, eventually culminating in an emotional collapse.
DID YOU NOT READ THE PART WHERE I TRIED TO LET HER DOWN EASY? You don't know it was an emotional collapse. No one can know why Megan killed herself. Maybe it was the myspace comments. Maybe it was the cold reaction from her own parents. Maybe it was her medication. YOU DON'T KNOW SO STOP PUTTING IT ON ME.
December 3, 2007 11:35 AM
Lori, you are delusional. You've spent six weeks trying to come up with a way to justify your sociopathic, vindictive behavior, and this is the best you can do?
Lame. Just plain lame.
It's all lies; delusional lies that you tell yourself so that you can sleep at night. You're mad at the world? Is that what you said? And to retaliate against the world, you right a blog called "Megan Had It Coming" and you call the child a slut?
Lame, lame, lame.
You really are a child predator. They always blame the victim, too. "That two year old SEDUCED ME. I had no choice but to molest her."
Megan was posting annonymous stuff through OTHER PEOPLES blogs? But you JUST KNEW IT WAS HER?? She's a demon seed....she's a slut...she's a BAD GIRL!
You are a deviant.
Have a shitty rest of your life. And your little dog, too.
December 3, 2007 11:35 AM
Letting her down easy would have been to just say, sorry, can't be friends anymore, or sorry, I'm moving away, or to just delete the account altogether. Instead, you had to be mean about it.
I don't think you intended to let her down easy at all.
December 3, 2007 11:36 AM
You can't be this stupid....really.
December 3, 2007 11:37 AM
a drunken driver does not intentionally set out to kill a carload of prom going teens. He is just driving home. That doesn't make him any less responsible.
This isn't like driving drunk. It's not even close. I worked to PROTECT MY DAUGHTER FROM A CYBER BULLY. There's was no way to know that Megan would kill herself. None. Not even the Meiers could predict or prevent it and they were HER PARENTS.
I'm not a murderer.
December 3, 2007 11:37 AM
What could have possibly possessed you to start this blog? I realize that you have serious mental problems, but where is your husband or your lawyer?
Is there no function adult in your life who is there to tell you how entirely ill-advised this blog is?
December 3, 2007 11:37 AM
First!
December 3, 2007 11:37 AM
I'm very sorry for your loss, but you have to understand that Megan suffered from clinical depression for which she took medication. Her depression wasn't psychological, it was chemical. That means there is truly no way to know WHY she killed herself. Maybe it was the final myspace comments. Maybe it was her own mother ignoring her. Maybe she skipped her medication recently. Maybe that FDA warning that anti-depressants can have suicidal effects on children and teens should have come out a couple of months earlier. You can't place blame on others when someone commits suicide.
You admit you knew she was depressed. How sad for you.
Lori, you aren't helping. Say sorry to them! Say sorry to your family. Say you are sorry to Ashley.
It is wrong, and she is gone. You didn't delete the account after it got sexual. You didn't do it. You didn't walk away. You kept going.
You are modeling this behavior for your very impressionable daughter. Teach her to own up to her mistakes. Be a good mom, and show her how you can take responsibility for her words and deeds. Be a good mom, and show your daughter the right way to do it.
December 3, 2007 11:38 AM