47 Year Old Lori Drew: she stated that she felt the hoax “contributed to Megan’s suicide, but she did not feel ‘as guilty’ because at the funeral she found out Megan(13) had tried to commit suicide before.”…

This is insane. Parents are not supposed to live their children’s lives. Part of growing up is having friends, fighting, making up or breaking up. It’s called life, and kids need to learn lessons, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Too b…

Left by Right Voices on November 28th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

I would take my Black Bear Classic knife, and slice her from her exhaust pipe to her pie-hole.
I heard about this a day or two ago.
Some sick, twisted people out there.

Left by no2liberals on November 28th, 2007 at 11:26 pm

If this girl was weak-willed and emotional enough to kill herself over something like this, well, I hate to say it, but she’s probably better off dead. Maybe it’s the way her parents raised her, but I’ll just chalk it up to weeding off the weak.

I will agree that the older woman is sick in many ways, though.

Left by Nazar on November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 am

So, being weak-willed and emotional is now a death sentence. Another shining example of Republican empathy!

Left by Preston on November 29th, 2007 at 7:40 am

LORI DREW YOU POOR EXCUSE OF A HUMAN BEING.
YOU’RE GONNA GET YOURS WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT.
MAY THE DEMONS OF THE DEEP RISE UP AND INFEST YOU WITH HORRIFIC PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR ALL TO SEE.
YOU SHOULD HANG YOURSELF IN PUBLIC FOR REDEMPTION. I WOULDNT PISS ON YOU IF YOU WERE ON FIRE YOU FUCKING SLUT.

Left by Eagle Eye on November 29th, 2007 at 7:57 am

Another shining example of Republican empathy!

Only a thoroughly indoctrinated leftard would see it that way.

Left by no2liberals on November 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am

I have to put myself in the shoes of the parents of the young girl and there would be no end to my fury at that deranged woman. I hope she’s charged to the limits of whatever the law allows, and it’s probably not enough.

Left by Dianne on November 29th, 2007 at 8:50 am

No2L-

I suppose it’s true that the Republicans on this site haven’t uniformly said that the teen got what she had coming to her but it’s also true that conservatives aren’t particularly known for their empathy (note their derisive use of the term ‘bleeding heart’ for anyone who expresses a concern for someone outside of their immediate family).

Nazar’s comment simply falls into that category.

Left by Preston on November 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am

“Only a thoroughly indoctrinated leftard would see it that way.”

Did you read & understood Nazar’s stupid comment y2l?

Left by Jacques on November 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am

i agree drew is a twisted idiot; that doesn’t negate that megan was, at very least, more emotionally high strung than the average 13 year old. while i feel for tina and ron, that doesn’t excuse their role, or lack there of, in this ridiculous display.
leave it to fools like pressy to make it a bipartisan issue. “bleeding heart” is most commonly used to describe the liberals who want to implement policy based on feelings as opposed to realities. folks like you! it sounds to me like your trying to suggest that someone who commits suicide isn’t responsible for their own death. “being weak-willed, emotional,” and suicidal is often a “death sentance”. this is nothing new and it certainly has nothing to do with republicans. take your bds pills and chill!

Left by adam on November 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am

Preston, glad you understood it was Nazar’s observation, but the ugly exercise of castigating every Republican was completely unnecessary.
For the record, I am a conservative, that votes mostly Republican, as they are the closest on the issues that matter to me. There was a time when there were conservative Democrats, but those days are long gone.
As for liberals having a monopoly on empathy, you certainly couldn’t tell by the vile things they have said and done since Eisenhower.
I often refer back to a piece written by Dr. Joan Swirsky.

Left by no2liberals on November 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

I think that piece that you refer to is the model of a lack of empathy. As you might notice- I am not a conservative- yet I come to a conservative website in order to understand a conservative perspective on issues (and, yes, debate those issues)

The piece you just link to is the exact opposite- rather than attempting to understand the motivations of liberals it simply writes them off as something to be treated with medication. Whatever floats your boat- just don’t call it empathy.

I’ll admit that I was being hyberbolic with my intitial statement- I certainly have a number of conservative family members who exhibit empathy for people outside their friends and relatives. Yet when it comes to actually proposing solutions to problems we all too often hear ideological excuses for doing nothing.

To me, Nazar’s comment fits the same pattern. He blames the victim of harrassment and deception for her own weakness. Did she probably have psychological problems? Duh! But does this exonerate a months-long campaign of fraud and abuse? I think an empathetic person says ‘no’.

Left by Preston on November 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Jesus Christ, the fact that this thread became a forum for partisan mudslinging SO QUICKLY sickens me. What the fuck is WRONG with you people? You both ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Left by John Jarzemsky on November 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Hey Preston. Maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully, but I think we can both agree that this girl had some serious problems to begin with. And yes, conservatives blame individuals for their own weaknesses and failures, while liberals don’t. That’s why liberals never have to take personal responsibility seriously.

I didn’t want to politicize this, but you were the one who brought up politics, Preston.

Left by Nazar on November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Everyone:

If you read the whole article, you’ll see that Lori Drew’s daughter and Megan had been friends before Megan switched schools, at which time she (as teenagers tend to do) decided she didn’t want to be friends anymore.

Lori Drew also knew that Megan was on anti-depressants. The pieces all seem to fit pretty well to me: Megan hurt Lori Drew’s daughter by ending their friendship and Lori Drew, in a display of despicable childish pettiness and just plain evil, decided to strike Megan where she knew it would hurt the most.

And for those of you talking about “personal responsibility”, THIS IS A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD!!!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!? A thirteen year old little girl with a chemical imbalance in her brain is viciously attacked by a 47 year old grown woman and your response is, basically “suck it up, bitch”.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

Left by John Jarzemsky on November 29th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

It is truly appalling. Even accepting the fact that Drew surely didn’t intend to lead to the death of Megan Meier I have a hard time believing there is no charges that could be brought- even something as minor as harassment

Left by Preston on November 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Well, Preston, I certainly have empathy for others, but my empathy doesn’t consume me and prevent me from viewing things rationally.
For instance, I do have empathy for liberals and their condition. I was one once, when I was very young, but overcame it through hard work and introspection. Taking on the responsibilities of family, and those of an employer of over one hundred employees who had families, and other responsibilities of their own, forced me to take off the blinders, and see how actions have consequences, which helped me learn how to anticipate outcomes, and plan better.
My empathy comes from personal experience, and knowing if I could overcome the condition of being a liberal, others can as well. Not everyone will, of course, but it is possible, and I will always be hopeful that others can make the same journey.
If you didn’t like Nazar’s comment, then perhaps a different approach would have been more productive, instead of casting aspersions at your perceived ideological enemies. If you think all Republicans are monolithic in their views, then you must also make the same assumption of all liberals. Your hyperbolic comment at the top of this thread, to me, was an attack on me and on many excellent people that you know nothing about.
Nazar has his opinions, which he is entitled to, and seems to be a big enough boy to defend his position. I stated mine prior to his, that I would take direct action against a parent that was involved in my child’s death. You didn’t enter this thread to opine on the tragic death of a young and troubled girl, but to attack.
Nazar might not feel the need to respond to acerbic comments like yours, but I did, and will do so in the future.

Left by no2liberals on November 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am

perhaps a different approach would have been more productive, instead of casting aspersions at your perceived ideological enemies.

Great, I’m once again given lessons on bipartisanship from “No2Liberals”…. Not more than two paragraphs after you patient description of your own cure from liberalism. You have a wonderful sense of irony. Apparently, you haven’t noticed that ‘unempathetic’ would be a compliment compared to the epithets routinely tossed my way on this site.

Look- I know I made a broad generalization of Republican traits yet the essential validity of the observation has been verified repeatedly through this very discussion. An account of Frank Luntz’s focus group analysis of the last Republican debate has struck me as relevant to the discussion:

In the next segment–the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee’s college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants–I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, “After all, these are children of God,” the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted.

I’m sure you’ll say that there is a good reason not to show empathy for children who were brought into this country illegally- well, there’s always a reason, isn’t there?

Left by Preston on November 30th, 2007 at 5:25 am

Well, that Lutz piece was an interesting read, Preston. I thought Romney and Thompson didn’t come off as well as they apparently did. I’m pleasantly surprised.

With respect to Klein’s analysis of Lutz’ analysis, he’s showing HIS bias when it comes to what HE thinks Romney’s actions should have been regarding the illegal immigrant landscapers. He thought Romney should have checked the immigration status of the landscapers doing the lawn. I submit that if he had, the democrats would have accused him of racism and everything else under the sun. What Romney said (paraphrased) was that he shouldn’t be expected to check the immigration status of the workers of the company that he hired to do the job. Romney was the customer, not the employer. Are the customers supposed to be the immigration police these days? If I had been wired on that focus group, my reaction would have gone off the chart as well.

With regard to Huckabee’s stance on education for illegal children, I would have also disagreed with him and it would have had nothing to do with God. The audience was reacting to the fact that when precious few scholarships are given to children of illegals, each one means one less for needy children of the very citizens who pay the tax bills. In fact, it’s 99% of the immigration debate. Citizens are being forced to pay the tax bill that pays for education, medical care and social programs for illegals and they are revolting against it. It isn’t a choice, it’s a mandate, and they’re tired of it.

Left by Dianne on November 30th, 2007 at 8:27 am

The University of Mexico is free to Mexican residents. Anyone who wants a free education can return to their homeland.

Left by Anonymous on November 30th, 2007 at 8:55 am

The point, anonymous, is that those children may very well have no knowledge of ever being in Mexico.

Dianne- I don’t know why Lutz got such a different response than general opinion polling (except the polling may have been just of Iowans) that showed Huckabee cleaning up with over 30% and the rest below 15%.

Left by Preston on November 30th, 2007 at 9:05 am

Preston, so you are saying Democrats good….Republicans bad, on your empathy rating system?
That’s using a broad brush on a tiny portrait of America.
Sounds familiar.
As for the epithets you say you receive, you ever stop and consider that your actions are largely responsible for that?
Here’s a reminder, from the fourth comment on this thread:

So, being weak-willed and emotional is now a death sentence. Another shining example of Republican empathy!

Yeah, poor-poor Preston, for no reason at all, he was attacked for making an innocent comment. If you don’t want to get any on you, don’t stir the shiite.

Left by no2liberals on November 30th, 2007 at 9:37 am

The point, anonymous, is that those children may very well have no knowledge of ever being in Mexico.

So what? Here is their opportunity to return to their homeland, receive a free education that they actually are entitled to, and possibly do something to improve Mexico.

Left by Anonymous on November 30th, 2007 at 9:48 am

Actually, No2, I was simply suggesting you get a thicker skin.

(Thanks, anonymous, for further making my point…)

Left by Preston on November 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm

The media is now attacking bloggers who are calling for Justice for Megan!

READ HERE WHAT WAS DONE TO ONE WEBSITE BY FOX TV

Left by The Exposer on November 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Preston, you would do well to follow your own advice. Flinging flaming bags of poop, then claiming you’re a victim, is very telling of you.
My skin is plenty thick, I just don’t take crap from petty leftist ideologues like you.

Left by no2liberals on November 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

(Thanks, anonymous, for further making my point…)

Your point being that neither you nor they care about them receiving an education but are just trying to create another ruse for illegal immigration? You’re welcome!

Left by Anonymous on December 1st, 2007 at 10:46 am

A ruse for illegal immigration? What a load of crap!

I am pro-immigration but I can’t believe the way that the last four administrations (particularly the current one) have failed to enforce the law. Because I have seen the enormous benefits that immigration has brought to my city (I’d estimate that 10 of 12 businesses on my block are owned by immigrants) I wish that the US could crack down on illegal immigration while simultaneously raising legal immigration.

However, I am sympathetic to people who have been living in this country and obeying the law for up to 20 years and I hope these people can be made even more productive by giving them a path to citizenship.

Left by Preston on December 1st, 2007 at 11:12 am

talk about “crap”; it might be easier for you to just say i oppose all bad things and favor all good things. what’s the weather in fantasyland today?

“However, I am sympathetic to people who have been living in this country and obeying the law for up to 20 years and I hope these people can be made even more productive by giving them a path to citizenship.”
we know, we know, you and all “bleeding heart” liberals are full of sympathy to oppose the mean old neocons…did you just forget to mention that these same people broke the law to get here or are you just trying to ignore reality, again? let me give you a clue: they already have a “path”; it’s called go home and apply legitimately like all the decent folks who you cut in front of when you began your illegal migration.

Left by adam on December 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am

Interesting results on this study based on Gallup poll data since 2004, concerning political party affiliations.
/let the spin begin

Left by no2liberals on December 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Talk about crap! Notice how preston tries to change the subject from illegal immigration to legal immigration?

Left by Anonymous on December 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Henh.
Anonymous, if that is your real name, yes, it is to be expected…it’s his empathic tendencies.

Left by no2liberals on December 1st, 2007 at 7:11 pm

On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials wasted no time enacting an ordinance designed to address the public outcry for justice in the Megan Meier tragedy. The six member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.

Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim?

The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. Classifying this case as a harassment issue completely fails to address the most serious aspects of the methods Lori Drew employed to lead this youth to her demise. The Vice disagrees that harassment was even a factor in this case until just a couple of days before Megan’s death.

Considering this case a harassment issue is incorrect because during the 5 weeks Lori Drew baited and groomed her victim, the attention was NOT unwanted attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was misled, lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.

This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators might use to reclassify their cases as harassment cases. In effect, the law enacted to give Megan justice, may make her even more vulnerable. So long as the child victim doesn’t tell the predator to stop, even a harassment charge may not stick with the right circumstances and a good defender.

Every aspect of this case follows the same procedural requirement used to convict a Child Predator. A child was manipulated by an adult. A child was engaged in sexually explicit conversation (as acknowledged by Lori Drew herself). An adult imposed her will on a child by misleading her, using a profile designed to sexually or intimately attract the 13 year old Megan.

Lori then utilized the power she had gained over this child to cause significant distress and endangerment to that child. She even stipulated to many of these activities in the police report she filed shortly after Megan’s death.

City officials who continue to ignore this viable, documented admission and continue to address this issue as harassment are intentionally burying their heads in the sand, when the solution is staring them right in the face. Why?

There are several other child exploitation laws on the books. To date, none of them have even been considered by City, State and Federal officials in this case. The Vice is outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Left by Danny Vice on December 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm

NO 2
GET A JOB YOU FLAMER !! FIND ANOTHER FORUM TRY ROTTEN.COM YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT. I LL BET YOU SLEEP WITH A GEORGE W BUSH DOLL LOL LOL LOL !!!!

Left by EAGLE EYE on December 3rd, 2007 at 9:42 am

Eagle Eye,

Don’t you think your name should be ‘Liberal Eye?’. Are you going to be the forum’s political Hack?

Left by Danny Vice on December 4th, 2007 at 2:05 am

oh my god. i can’t believe some of you people are arguing over such stupid things when this was about a serious issue. and from nazar in the beginning basically saying this girl deserved to die because she had “emotional issues” is horrible. Maybe she did have issues..but what lori drew did to her was the most disgusting thing I have ever heard. She’s a 47 year old adult and what she did was just the same as an internet predator and she should be in jail for the rest of her life. i totally agree with what danny vice said. Shame on this woman. I hope she reads everyone of these comments and sees how much everyone hates her…and that she rots in hell. what kind of grown woman behaves like this?!?

Left by christy on December 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Lori drew deserves to be raped with flaming swords. What a sick, twisted, and inhuman monster she is.

Left by fpr on December 8th, 2007 at 1:32 am