cmorg

I am not arguing this point. The point I was trying to make is that it makes no difference if you trust them or not, or if you want them to speak to a child without a parent or not - the parent has no say on the matter at all. That is not right.

Let's see - I am a conservative, yet I am not gross, nor am I old, nor am I a pervert. It seems that you have slandered me. So I must insist that you immediately apologize for that slanderous insult.

While I don't have a problem with teens being advised of the dangers of unprotected sex (abstinence should be promoted), the parent should make the decision on who discusses what with their child. Always. The "state" screws things up on a daily basis and should not be in a position to circumvent parental rights or wishes. Well here's the problem . . . Based on the law, it wouldn't matter if you would allow it or not - you wouldn't have a say in the matter. And while you would allow it for a 17yo, would you also allow it for a 13 yo?

Yeah, but what about the rest of the facts ? I bet it will come out that he was bullied or something.

1. Speculation? Maybe. But unless they are trying to protect the identity of an undercover, "informant" usually refers to a criminal that is lower on the food chain that is used to catch one higher and more "valuable". 2. Again, based on at least one news report the day after (maybe on Fox 5), there was a minivan parked outside of the house in question which contained a variety of items that would suggest a child could be there. Further, this crib/bed was immediately inside the window in which this particular "grenade" was tossed. 3. Based on the words of the department in stating tha

Ah! I think I have heard that before, after skimming the link. As to the topic at hand, I can see where some would blame only the bad guys . . . and I can see where some would blame only the supposed good guys. The majority of blame, the burden of a clean op lies squarely on the good guys, the ones who are supposed to protect us and keep our communities safe. Regardless of how the kid came to be in the house, the police are the ones that, through their actions and negligence, injured him. Period.

The credible informant was most likely a criminal trying to save his own ass, it was definitely not an undercover, so the information should have been verified. Basing their actions on information that was not credible was reckless. Their unwillingness to conduct any type of eyes-on intelligence gathering was reckless. The judge issues the warrant based on the information the deputies/detectives provide, and shouldn't have to verify or investigate what a sworn law officer affirms in such a request. The fault lies with those on site. And, BTW, the did catch their guy . . . a

When all you have is fingernail clippers, everything looks like a fingernail. What's your point? (seriously, I don't get your point)

The political "commentary" came a little later. The song is good.

All the yummy yummy food. And it's 11:36 at night . . . and I am hungry now. Sorry for the confusion, that wasn't a serious comment about y'all sucking.

What were you reading? Whoever put that child in danger is a piece of crap for certain. That does not excuse the gestapo tactics of backwoods law enforcement. Quit stirring up trouble and pissing me off.

You people suck!!!

This story pisses me off. A no-knock warrant, going on no other information but what was provided by a known criminal, and no effort put forth to determine whether there might be innocents in the house. One report stated that there was a minivan in the driveway with baby toys, clothes and other items. I hope the family sues the hell out of habersham county and that those officers/deputies face charges. There is not an excuse that can be offered that would make this any better. Hopefully this kid will recover and happy and healthy. Drugs are a big problem, but it seems t

That's the key, isn't it? But I bet that the original point of this was to try and portray this as a "big deal", this rift in the "pro-gun" crowd. The lesson here is that all groups/organizations/parties have their very own idiots that give the rest a bad name.

And I am sure that each and every rich politician, regardless of party affiliation, has not experienced any significant monetary gain since taking office. These people who choose to serve the public do so selflessly and are among the most honest, upstanding citizens in America. /s It just hit me that once upon a time the above sentences were probably true. What a sad state we find ourselves in.

For someone to get an idea from somewhere is one thing, and we can debate the harmful effects of music, movies, video games, or whatever the evil du jour happens to be. But to a certain extent I have to agree with pubby. While young children are influenced rather easily, there should still be present the ability to know right and wrong, certainly by the age of these girls. So I see it not as a case of what prompted them to do this, but as a case of what was wrong with them, mentally and/or emotionally, that would make them blind to it being so wrong.

I don't buy everything the republicans sell. But you know that there are rich and powerful people of every political flavor, and there are politicians in both parties willing to do them "favors".

Funny that a liberal would say something like that. They think they can do the same things that have failed in the past, but are so arrogant in thinking they can do them better.

Thank you for your service and welcome home! Marines or . . . ugh . . . Army? Reports I have seen from his hometown have them calling him a hero. Innocent until proven guilty . . . his guilt is in his own words and his actions.

That is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I still believe you are having a hard time understanding what "truths" are. Making up a "funny" substitution for an acronym, one that reveals your political leanings and probably better suits your overall demeanor, is not a truth.

And did it involve two or more vehicles?

Digging for fault?? We don't have to dig for anything, obama just keeps slinging it out there. And, for the record, I don't think you defend obama. No one can seriously defend him.

You know, that's a good idea. A cooking show posted every week or two, with the menu and ingredients posted in advance in case some want to follow along. I would watch that, these meals always sound so good (and often put to shame whatever we are having) ← don't tell the wife I said that, she really is a good cook.

No man left behind. You're right. Which is why 6 soldiers were killed trying to find him. Which is why searches continued for years. Which is also why a deal could have been reached by following the law and going through channels . . . and not giving up 5 top taliban for 1 deserter. But no man left behind really refers to the wounded or killed on the battlefield, and then to those who got captured. So the question then becomes: does the idea of no man left behind apply to those who willingly seek out and give themselves up to the enemy?