Random Politics & Religion #00

Yeah, because there's no way that a mother of a 14-year-old would have inside knowledge of her daughter's personality and tendencies. It's a pure probability shoot for sure.

-10 respect points.

Yeah, because there's no way that a mother of a 14-year-old would have inside knowledge of her daughter's personality and tendencies. It's a pure probability shoot for sure.

-10 respect points.

Yeah, because there's no way she's had boyfriends before or made her orientation known. Let's just say that it's pure sexism to even assume the sexual orientation of someone, even if they've told you, because they could be lying. Heaven forbid they even suggest that you hang out with people of the opposite gender either, those insensitive heathens.

Yeah, because there's no way she's had boyfriends before or made her orientation known. Let's just say that it's pure sexism to even assume the sexual orientation of someone, even if they've told you, because they could be lying. Heaven forbid they even suggest that you hang out with people of the opposite gender either, those insensitive heathens.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar broke their silence about son Josh’s sexual molestation scandal on Wednesday night, but their interview was filled with misinformation and the reality TV couple also withheld crucial facts, according to public documents, obtained by In Touch magazine through the Freedom of Information Act.

1) One of the most glaring omissions by the family concerns their statements about the 2006 Springdale Police Department investigation. The Duggars gave the viewing audience the impression that they fully cooperated, saying, “We trusted them, we trusted the police department.” But the Springdale police report, obtained by In Touch through FOIA, reveals that Jim Bob refused to produce Josh for a police-requested interview and stopped cooperating with the probe. “On Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at approximately 1300 hours D. Hignite received a voice mail from Jim Bob Duggar in reference to the interview with [redacted, Josh]. Det. Hignite received a voice mail from Mr. Duggar stating that [redacted, Josh] had hired an attorney and will not be coming in for interview.”

2) When discussing the legal situation surrounding Josh’s confession of molestation, Jim Bob told Fox News that he and Michelle were “not mandatory reporters, the law allows parents to do what they think is best for their child.” Not so. While they are not mandatory reporters, the law does not allow them to do what they think is best for their child in this situation, multiple legal experts tell In Touch.

By not reporting the at-least SEVEN instances of abuse on at least THREE occasions during a period of more than a year, they could have faced felony charges for child endangerment, with a six-year prison term.

Law professor Michael Johnson, a former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, tells In Touch: “It is possible that investigators looking into this case could have cited the parents Jim Bob Duggar and Michelle Duggar with Arkansas Code 5-27-221 ‘Permitting Abuse of a Minor.’ Having once learned of the behavior, they recklessly allowed it to continue. This crime is a class D felony because the abuse consisted of sexual contact with a minor. The maximum penalty for permitting this type of abuse under Arkansas Code 5-4-401 is six years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.” The new issue of In Touch magazine has complete details on the Duggars’ cover-up and how it could have landed them in prison.

3) Jim Bob suggested the records of Josh’s crimes were released because the Springdale police chief, Kathy O’Kelley, may have taken a bribe. The records were obtained through Arkansas' Freedom of Information Act, which is one of the most liberal open records laws in the country, according to the state’s attorney general.

In Touch has a paper trail that proves city attorneys reviewed the FOI request and approved the records' release. Further, Jim Bob’s “bribe or personal agenda” explanation for the records' release loses all credibility in light of the fact that a SECOND police report detailing Josh’s crimes was obtained by In Touch magazine through FOIA.

That second report comes from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, and the Springdale police chief has no involvement in deciding if those records can be released.

4) Jim Bob and sympathetic host Megyn Kelly repeatedly referred to the records as being “illegally released.” Not so, say legal experts. That claim is “disputed by the law enforcement agencies involved, the Arkansas Press Association and attorneys with expertise in public-document cases involving the state's Freedom of Information Act,” according to the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

The news outlet reports:

5) The Duggars did not address the fact that they were investigated by the Department of Human Services after the 2006 police probe was terminated due to the statute of limitations. They have not said what the results of the DHS investigation were.

6) Megyn Kelly said that the Duggars “hadn’t gotten a heads-up” about the release of Josh’s police report and the Duggars did not dispute that. But In Touch has obtained documents that show the city of Springdale alerted them before releasing the records. The law does not require the city to alert someone before their records are released pursuant to a FOIA request.

7) Jim Bob made it clear that he took Josh to talk to the police and randomly happened to end up with Trooper Jim Hutchens. (Hutchens is now serving a 56-year-prison term on child pornography charges, as reported exclusively by In Touch magazine.)

“We didn’t know anything about this guy except he was an officer there for the headquarters,” Jim Bob said in Wednesday’s interview.

But Hutchens was interviewed from prison by a representative from a local law firm hired by In Touch and contradicts Jim Bob’s story. He said he knew Jim Bob well from his job and had even taught a couple of classes to car dealerships with him. In addition, Hutchens – who was not promised anything in return for his interview and told only that it was part of an investigation – said that Jim Bob specifically sought him out to talk to Josh.

Asked who initially contacted him for the meeting, Hutchens said: “Jim Bob did.” He then explained: “He called me by phone – he just said he needed to talk with me about a matter, he didn’t explain what he got there.” That interview was conducted before Jim Bob’s comments were aired.

All documents cited in this article were publicly available before Fox conducted its interview.

And where pray tell do smart women hang out ?

Libraries, book stores, coffee/tea shops (not Starbucks. Try maybe Tim Hortons or Dunkin' Donuts?), university campuses or museums (art, science, AND natural history)? Maybe people just don't see them because they don't hide behind 20 pounds of make-up and they don't wear clothes that show their breasts and *** and they usually have their noses in some book? lol.

Maybe people just don't see them because they don't hide behind 20 pounds of make-up and they don't wear clothes that show their breasts and ***

Bleh.
Perpetrating the stereotype that a girl can't be smart and emphasize her physical appearance too.

What exactly are you trying to express here? That a comedian's depiction of their child accurately calling a spade a spade means that a new generation of adolescents can't appreciate poor comedy?

Not really. Just that you don't know what the word "accurately" means. It's not sexism.

If I can't see their breasts or *** how will I know if I like them though ?

How about just wear a T shirt that has your IQ women !

You are either smart or attractive (unwritten rule) I'll take attractive over smart if I have to have only one though...

Not really. Just that you don't know what the word "accurately" means. It's not sexism.

Well, first off, if you're looking for a "smart woman" I don't think she would give anything up to you on the first few dates. Since she would hopefully have some more self-respect than those California barbie girls who walk around in nothing but bikini's, short shorts and 12 inch heels. Lol So you'll just have to suffer through and wait it out. If you truly wanted a "smart woman" then she would defiantly be worth it. lol.

Yea but I can't have sex with a personality...not yet at least.

Well, what would you call a stereotype based on sex (gender)?

Well, what would you call a stereotype based on sex (gender)?

Yea but I can't have sex with a personality...not yet at least.

And I disagree again. You can be smart and seeking adventures. Stop please.

people like Seha can't take it

Well if you're looking for just sex then their intelligence shouldn't matter but if you were looking for a relationship then personality should have a little something going for them. Unless you wanted to date a crazy ***. lol. I mean come on, we all know that the hot ones are always crazy ***. lol

You could argue that is the definition of smart, but you could also argue that a person who illicits that type of attention may be lacking in common sense depending on the setting.

Your values about sexuality are not the same as everyone's. Not to everyone a coitus is life changing choice. So no, looking for short term sexual satisfaction has no correlation with intelligence.