Exposed Kevin Jennings Obama's "Safe School Czar" part 5

[WhereDidItAllGo7]

Obama surrounds himself with WEIRDOS! This WEIRDO MUST GO!

[pataskalagirl]

Guest..... He was 15 and 16 is not the age of consent 18 is.

[Guest4000]

Wrong. He has proven that he was in fact 16 at the time. And you display your ignorance by not knowing that the age of consent is 16 in the state in which this occurred, not 18 as you are for some reason insisting.

[pataskalagirl]

Guest ..no your left wing wacko sites say that..Jennings has said he was 15 I'm sure he was sixteen eventually at some time we all were. He was 15 and sodomy was illegal at the time unless you were of the age of 21. IN MASS.

[Guest4000]

No, pataskalagirl, the original student *himself* says that. This is perfect, actually, since by ignoring that fact you reveal that you really don't give two figs about the individual; you really just want to use him and people like him as a pawn to try to scare ignorant people. Thanks for being so transparent just then.

Also, you're basing your entire argument on an archaic sodomy law from colonial times (which outlaws oral and anal sex)? Wow, talk about wacko...

[pataskalagirl]

Guest ..I heard you. after more than 20 years a gay man toting the gay line I see. No I don't give a fig about a almost forty year old man and his sexual preference now. But when he was a 15 year old child that is a differnt story. The law was the law no matter how much you didn't like it and it was to protect children sorry you think that is an archaic idea. That is how we get freaks like jennings messing with our childrens heads. by discarding archaic ideas about protecting children.

[Guest4000]

Aw, that's really cute. You just compared an archaic sodomy law (which outlaws oral and anal sex regardless of age and orientation) to laws against murder. Aren't you just precious! *pats pataskalagirl on the head*

And, uh yeah, I hate to break it to you, but a law that outlaws all oral sex is archaic. You clearly think otherwise. Man, you're kookier than I thought...

Oh, and he was 16 at the time, remember?

[pataskalagirl]

Guest ..any law that outlaws sex with children oral or otherwise is extremely OK with me. As for any other oral sex unless you are doing it in the street no one would have been charged. What you do in your bedroom no one needs to know. If you chose to do it in public or broadcast it. well I do not feel sorry for stupid. He was 15 and besides a sixteen year old shouldn't be having sex with an adult no matter how stupid the state may be. I see if they allowed it with 5 year olds you would approve

[Guest4000]

Haha! So when did you stop molesting the kids in your neighborhood, pataskalagirl? Or are you still into sexually abusing your neighbor's kids? See! I can make up ridiculous, scare-mongering bullshit too! Seriously, you're astoundingly immature, even for a youtube commenter. Congrats on that I suppose. ;-)

Oh, and the student wasn't a child, he was a legal adult.

[pataskalagirl]

Guest..sorry that is your gig. Anyone who thinks a 40 year old man should be legallysodomizing a 15 or 16 year old is a sick puppy. No, not 16. He was 15 as Jennings said. And sodomy was a crime in Massachusetts for anyone under 21 at that time. So crime whether you think so or not, that is your own perversion sweetie. Scaremongering? That is also your gig sweetie.

[Guest4000]

Ah, sweetie, I wouldn't be defending a law that made oral sex illegal for any age and was also ruled to be unconstitutional in the first place. Slavery used to be legal too. Let's see you defend those slave-owner now. And, no, he was 16, as has been *proven* by the student himself.

And that's right. I said you're scare-mongering. And you are (though, you're not too good at it, but nice job trying).

[pataskalagirl]

Guest says "Ah, sweetie, I wouldn't be defending a law that made oral sex illegal for any age"... I certainly hope that anyone who knows you in real life and has children see's this. So they can protect their children. You are a sick puppy. Slave owning is your gig again. You believe children should be sex slaves to adults. Hey like ACORN. The slave owner in the WH will own you in govt healthcare if he gets his way. The companies he bailed are now his slaves too. Slaves to his bidding just watch

[Guest4000]

"I certainly hope that anyone who knows you in real life and has children see's this."

Really? So, you'd be for a law that would criminalize oral sex regardless of age? That's what I just argued is crazy; and that's what you responded to. And you're arguing in favor of such a law? Wow. And then you call the president a slave owner. Holy crap, I've been conversing with a mentally insane person... Quick, lock up all of any age who has ever had oral sex! Seriously, wow...

[pataskalagirl]

Guest. I was talking about Massachusetts and the fact that it was against the law for anyone under 21 at the time of the Jennings debacle. which protected children. Have never said I favored what you keep spouting about that is all you. The President is now a slave owner the businesses he bailed out will now be tod what they can and cannot do sweetie . He has already started. And yes lock up child abusers ..forever ..You my friend are insane.

[Guest4000]

Okay, I'll go over this slowly for you, okay sweetie-pie? I stated that the sodomy law (outlawing oral sex) that you are defending applied to all ages, and that I think such a law is crazy. You flipped out (because you're nuts) about how that makes me a "sick puppy." I also pointed out that the law was ruled unconstitutional, sugar-plum. I've noticed that you've conveniently ignored that fact. Hm, I wonder why? Oh, you're just a cute little wing-nut, aren't you?

[pataskalagirl]

Guest ..OK I will go over this slowly for you sweetie. I never talked about the old law of sodomy...I talked about the sodomy law that was in effect in Massachusetts at the time of the incident which was about anyone under 21 years of age was illegal. Why are you to dense to understand this?

[Guest4000]

Aw, honey-bunny, did I hurt your little feelings by pointing out the fact that the sodomy law in question never had an age limit, which is why it was ruled in 2002 as unconstitutional? Heh, talk about dense... you just get cuter and cuter (though, unfortunately, not any smarter)! ;-)

[pataskalagirl]

Guest ..Your stupidity does not hurt my feelings sweetie. The law in question was the Massachusetts law on Sodomy in the early 80s. It only concerned those under 21. And they changed it in 89, I think. Alot of states had different laws on this subject, But the one concerning this subject (Jennings and his perverted act of ignoring a crime) was in Massachusetts, sorry to hurt your feelings but I don't know what state law you keep spewing about..Try to stay on subject sweetie.

[Guest4000]

Oh, pataskalagirl, you empty-headed sweatheart you, you don't have to make stuff up, you know. How about this, honeybunch... point to the law on the web. If you can't or won't make a link then quote part or all of the text verbatim, and people can google it. That's right, put up or shut up, sweetie-pie. Let's see you lie your way of that, darling. I know I, for one, am looking forward to your backpedaling. :-)

[pataskalagirl]

Guest .I told you we wil go with your take on this... Sodomy law was in effect till 2002. So Jennings didn't report a crime done to a teenage child..Defifinite and Done ...The guy is scum.

[Guest4000]

"Defifinite and Done"

Heh. Definite and done, indeed... You just expressed your support for an unconstitutional law. Just because it wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 2002 doesn't mean it was constitutional up until then. You really don't understand how Constitutional law works, do you? In any case, you support laws that are against the United States Constitution. Got it.

[pataskalagirl]

Guest..I support all laws that are in force. Whether they are later or not. Sodomy under 18 should still be against the law there is nothing unconstitutional about protecting the young. There are many ways people use the constitution to do harm. Look at the church and state debate they use it in so many ways that the constitution did not call for. That was written to mean that the state could not force one religion on everyone. It did not mean people in govt could not express their religion .

[ourorboros2]

@Guest4000

wow, you come across as a man(definitely) who has very little control over his life outside of the internet. you use words purposefully to try and put down others you are arguing with because you like to be in control and feel threatened when people dont instantly agree with you. at least thats what i've got from reading through your comments, save yourself some time when you come argue with me and dont bother with the insults as i dont care nor do most people and all in all it

[Guest4000]

@ourorboros2 And yet you completely ignore pataskalagirl's comments. How unsurprising... Sorry ouroboros2, but you have no ground to stand on seeing as you can't seem to fathom that I would respond in kind to someone who has been equally rude to me (you clearly didn't read her comments or just ignored them).  Other than that, I have nothing to "argue" with you about seeing as you didn't put forth any substantive point other than to deride me and ignore the same behavior from pataskalagirl.

[ourorboros2]

@Guest4000

just shows a weak frightened (white?) man.

[ourorboros2]

@Guest4000

actually reading through some her comments which i must have missed in my very late night skimming through of these vids shows shes actually a rather large idiot, apologies on the insults, just sounded like some guy trying to be patronising to a woman which annoys me no end, apologies and insults taken back. ps on the point of bringing race into it, i am a white male so i dont much care if i use it as an insult though i have to admit white males tend to be rather idiotic.

[pataskalagirl]

Guest.. all laws are old is all I stated. And Mass. law against sodomy was not for everyone it was for those under 21. And it was valid at the time of the incident so to keep denying that it was legal because he was 16 (which he was not) is just stupid. And Jennings failed to protect a child and failed to report a crime . Makes him a sicko beyond the pale. And all those who ignore that fact are also sicko beyond the pale. Please stop sharing your twisted sickness with me. Thank you.

[Guest4000]

"Mass. law against sodomy was not for everyone it was for those under 21."

Wrong. The law applied to all (and was eventually ruled unconstitutional). Get informed.

"it was valid at the time of the incident so to keep denying that it was legal because he was 16 (which he was not)"

He was, in fact, 16. Get informed, pataskalagirl.

"And Jennings failed to protect a child and failed to report a crime."

It wasn't a crime, because no criminal activity occurred. Get informed, pataskalagirl.

[pataskalagirl]

Guest...How could you know. Jennings never named the student , anyone could claim to be that child then. Murder is also and archaic law from colonial times too, as most other laws. You are transparent , you believe children 15 or 16 should be used sexually by adults. Talk about a wacko.

[Guest4000]

"You are transparent , you believe children 15 or 16 should be used sexually by adults."

Aw, another cute little lie. But that's par for the course for you, isn't it? I believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to have sex. The student was 16, a legal adult according to the state. I'm sorry you have trouble with very basic facts. Try harder next time?

[pataskalagirl]

This man as a teacher when a child informed him he was being sexually abused by an adult man told the child to use condoms!

[Guest4000]

Uh, it was a *16 year old* who said he was *having sex* with an older man. 16 years old is the age of consent. Lying doesn't get you anywhere, pataskalagirl.

[DTV1977]

Most states the age of consent is 18.

[Guest4000]

So? That doesn't matter.  In the state in question it is 16. That's what matters.