Black boys punch and stomp on white 6th grader on bus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:awful, IMO

And no one is telling me that those few bused in weren't racist. They hated you b/c they hated their lives. And everyday - being sent to your school was a reminder of how shitty their lives were.

anger
resentment
hostility
brutal actions

not making excuses for their behavior - But I do see where they're coming from.

But if you were my kid, you'd be in private at that point. No one deserves that treatment - white on black, black on white, hispanic on black, white on Asian - I could go on and on.

Anonymous wrote:When I was in high school, they integrated the school through bussing. Mind you, there were already local minorities, but they decided to bring in students from the inner city neighborhoods. Know what happened? The girl's room stopped being safe - other girls were robbed of their lunch money and other things. The inner city girls would pull broken glass from their clothing, their hair, and steal from us.

We were used as a social experiment. No one protected us from the fallout of the government's progressive policies. These kids were from unfortunate backgrounds and that was somehow our fault? We were to be put at risk?

Bullshit.

My right to be safe in my school was just as important and their rights to go to a safe school. Except that's not how it worked out. My rights for personal safety turned out to be nullified.

Their rights were NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN MINE, or anyone else's in my school. And yet, these feel-good progressive programs make their rights just that.

I'm sorry they are angry and yes, you ARE excusing their behavior.

It's either work with these kids by finding out what makes them tick, or send them out into the world to become Trayvons and the three kids on the video.

Which would you prefer? to be mugged (or worse) by some angry kid or know that s/he can function in society

not saying YOU'RE the right one for the job -Clearly you're too hostile and resentful yourself to see straight. But someone's got to do it.

no excuses - just figuring out WHY people become such shitty humans

And it's easier to save a kid than it is to save an adult.

With all due respect, you should read the research (incidentally, my friend's brother was heavily involved) on this. Summary: Changing the environment through the use of boarding schools (i.e. removing them from the home) was the only thing that really had an effect. The parents and their home environment IS the problem and liberals who 'want to find out what makes them tick' are failing miserably (using my tax dollars, I might add).

You can spend eons trying to figure out the 'why are they like this'. You're much better off addressing the how to change it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Race aside, it clearly is a violent act involving children."

There are instances of violence involving children every day. Would you like the President to comment on all of them? The President commented on the Trayvon Martin killing not because it was violence involving youth, but because it was a national story that proved very divisive.

Well this would be too if more people had heard about it.

This is the stupidity of the FNC-cultivated bubble. Rather than using their pulpit to tell the news, they use it to talk about the news. How often does FNC (you know, the most watched cable news channel) and other members of the conservative media industrial complex (4 of the top 9 radio shows) bitch about how the media isn't covering something... ignoring that they are the media and they are opting to cover the coverage instead of actually cover the story?

It is self-fulfilling, woe-is-me, self-victimization. "Wahhh... no one listens to us... it's bias... it's a conspiracy." No... no one listens to you because every time you are given a forum, you fill it with whining instead of actual substance.

Um, FNC and other conservative media IS covering those stories - which is why they are wondering why mainstream isn't.

THEY ARE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!! THAT IS WHAT YOU DON'T GET! Just because they aren't the only voice doesn't mean they aren't mainstream.

When they first reported the story, they pushed the racial angle. When they interviewed the leading police officer, he repeated that there was no evidence of race being a factor. What'd they do? Ignore him and push the racial angle anyway. That's not news. That's not reporting. That is editorializing. Don't bitch when your unsubstantiated narrative isn't supported by others.

According to liberal media and liberals, they are NOT mainstream; they are 'faux news' after all. Isn't that what you call them?

The racial angle to this, as you call it, is that the same voices calling Zimmerman a racist are dead-silent. DEAD silent.

Show me a mainstream media source that called Zimmerman racist. One with at least half the audience of Fox.

Who are those voices? Reading is fundamental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Race aside, it clearly is a violent act involving children."

There are instances of violence involving children every day. Would you like the President to comment on all of them? The President commented on the Trayvon Martin killing not because it was violence involving youth, but because it was a national story that proved very divisive.

Please, he contributed to the divisiveness. He didn't just comment.

How, exactly? Because he made a statement of fact ("If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon") that was intended to connect with and demonstrate empathy for the family of a dead teenager? Where ever you came down on Zimmerman's actions, surely we can agree that the family deserved our sympathy, yes? Or was even offering that divisive, part of the "culture war"?

Again, this was a local issue so why comment at all? He commented to create racial divide. If the President had been a white man and had commented similarly on this case, the left would have gone apoplectic. And rightfully so - because it would not be his place.

By the time Obama responded, it had gone national. There were protests/rallies across the nation. The issue was simmering and went beyond a black/white thing into legitimate questions about police procedures, SYG laws, and the criminal justice system as a whole. Trayvon was shot in February. The President's statement was given in late March. It only proved divisive because conservatives and white supremists were outraged that the President wasn't by default rallying to their side. Obama made a truthful statement: if he had a son, he likely would have looked something like Trayvon. His parents were grieving and looking for the criminal justice system, our government, which is sworn to our and their protection, to protect them. To that point, they felt unprotected. Obama was connecting with them to demonstrate that they were not alone in their grief and in their pursuit of justice, whatever form that justice may take. Is seeking justice divisive? If offering support to the parents of a dead teenager divisive? Is making a statement of fact divisive? Please... tell me what, exactly, what divisive about his initial statements on the matter?

And stop, STOP with the if's. Anyone can construct a hypothetical they aren't required to substantiate.

And he added fuel to the fire by stating that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. That implied Zimmerman shot Trayvon simply because he was black, which is absolute horseshit.

Plenty of parents are grieving. The parents of the four men slain in Benghazi were grieving and they got lies and cover-ups. So don't give me the "Obama sympathy card" BS.

If you interpret an expression of sympathy as "fuel to the fire", you are a petty, angry person.

If you interpret the President's words as simply an expression of sympathy, you are very, very, naive.

He could have said "this is a tragic situation for all involved and I'm sorry for your loss". That' all he needed to say to express sympathy. That's not where he went....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Race aside, it clearly is a violent act involving children."

There are instances of violence involving children every day. Would you like the President to comment on all of them? The President commented on the Trayvon Martin killing not because it was violence involving youth, but because it was a national story that proved very divisive.

Please, he contributed to the divisiveness. He didn't just comment.

How, exactly? Because he made a statement of fact ("If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon") that was intended to connect with and demonstrate empathy for the family of a dead teenager? Where ever you came down on Zimmerman's actions, surely we can agree that the family deserved our sympathy, yes? Or was even offering that divisive, part of the "culture war"?

Again, this was a local issue so why comment at all? He commented to create racial divide. If the President had been a white man and had commented similarly on this case, the left would have gone apoplectic. And rightfully so - because it would not be his place.

By the time Obama responded, it had gone national. There were protests/rallies across the nation. The issue was simmering and went beyond a black/white thing into legitimate questions about police procedures, SYG laws, and the criminal justice system as a whole. Trayvon was shot in February. The President's statement was given in late March. It only proved divisive because conservatives and white supremists were outraged that the President wasn't by default rallying to their side. Obama made a truthful statement: if he had a son, he likely would have looked something like Trayvon. His parents were grieving and looking for the criminal justice system, our government, which is sworn to our and their protection, to protect them. To that point, they felt unprotected. Obama was connecting with them to demonstrate that they were not alone in their grief and in their pursuit of justice, whatever form that justice may take. Is seeking justice divisive? If offering support to the parents of a dead teenager divisive? Is making a statement of fact divisive? Please... tell me what, exactly, what divisive about his initial statements on the matter?

And stop, STOP with the if's. Anyone can construct a hypothetical they aren't required to substantiate.

And he added fuel to the fire by stating that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. That implied Zimmerman shot Trayvon simply because he was black, which is absolute horseshit.

Plenty of parents are grieving. The parents of the four men slain in Benghazi were grieving and they got lies and cover-ups. So don't give me the "Obama sympathy card" BS.

If you interpret an expression of sympathy as "fuel to the fire", you are a petty, angry person.

If you interpret the President's words as simply an expression of sympathy, you are very, very, naive.

He could have said "this is a tragic situation for all involved and I'm sorry for your loss". That' all he needed to say to express sympathy. That's not where he went....

You recognize the difference between sympathy and empathy, yes?
Empathy: Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes.
Sympathy: Acknowledging another person's emotional hardships and providing comfort and assurance.

Obama was able to empathize with the Martins. And he did so.

This is the definition of privilege. "Wahhh... he was able to uniquely connect with these black parents, a group that previously was incapable of empathizing with a President over racial matters because every President before that was white... it's unfair and divisive!"

Obama said nothing on Zimmerman. He did not weigh in on his guilt or innocence. He saw a family grieving and was able to say, "I truly and deeply understand what you're feeling because you and I are not that different." No previous President could have said that to the Martin. Previous Presidents have connected empathetically with any number of white families, without getting flamed. But god forbid the black man do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Race aside, it clearly is a violent act involving children."

There are instances of violence involving children every day. Would you like the President to comment on all of them? The President commented on the Trayvon Martin killing not because it was violence involving youth, but because it was a national story that proved very divisive.

Please, he contributed to the divisiveness. He didn't just comment.

How, exactly? Because he made a statement of fact ("If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon") that was intended to connect with and demonstrate empathy for the family of a dead teenager? Where ever you came down on Zimmerman's actions, surely we can agree that the family deserved our sympathy, yes? Or was even offering that divisive, part of the "culture war"?

Again, this was a local issue so why comment at all? He commented to create racial divide. If the President had been a white man and had commented similarly on this case, the left would have gone apoplectic. And rightfully so - because it would not be his place.

By the time Obama responded, it had gone national. There were protests/rallies across the nation. The issue was simmering and went beyond a black/white thing into legitimate questions about police procedures, SYG laws, and the criminal justice system as a whole. Trayvon was shot in February. The President's statement was given in late March. It only proved divisive because conservatives and white supremists were outraged that the President wasn't by default rallying to their side. Obama made a truthful statement: if he had a son, he likely would have looked something like Trayvon. His parents were grieving and looking for the criminal justice system, our government, which is sworn to our and their protection, to protect them. To that point, they felt unprotected. Obama was connecting with them to demonstrate that they were not alone in their grief and in their pursuit of justice, whatever form that justice may take. Is seeking justice divisive? If offering support to the parents of a dead teenager divisive? Is making a statement of fact divisive? Please... tell me what, exactly, what divisive about his initial statements on the matter?

And stop, STOP with the if's. Anyone can construct a hypothetical they aren't required to substantiate.

And he added fuel to the fire by stating that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. That implied Zimmerman shot Trayvon simply because he was black, which is absolute horseshit.

Plenty of parents are grieving. The parents of the four men slain in Benghazi were grieving and they got lies and cover-ups. So don't give me the "Obama sympathy card" BS.

If you interpret an expression of sympathy as "fuel to the fire", you are a petty, angry person.

If you interpret the President's words as simply an expression of sympathy, you are very, very, naive.

He could have said "this is a tragic situation for all involved and I'm sorry for your loss". That' all he needed to say to express sympathy. That's not where he went....

You recognize the difference between sympathy and empathy, yes?
Empathy: Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes.
Sympathy: Acknowledging another person's emotional hardships and providing comfort and assurance.

Obama was able to empathize with the Martins. And he did so.

This is the definition of privilege. "Wahhh... he was able to uniquely connect with these black parents, a group that previously was incapable of empathizing with a President over racial matters because every President before that was white... it's unfair and divisive!"

Obama said nothing on Zimmerman. He did not weigh in on his guilt or innocence. He saw a family grieving and was able to say, "I truly and deeply understand what you're feeling because you and I are not that different." No previous President could have said that to the Martin. Previous Presidents have connected empathetically with any number of white families, without getting flamed. But god forbid the black man do it.

Also, you haven't demonstrated HOW it was divisive.

Let's look at the issue.

Some set of people thought that Zimmerman was innocent of a crime. Some set of people thought he was guilty of a crime. Within these sets, people had varying degrees of intensity behind their views and different rationales for arriving at them. But that was the primary divide.

Obama came out and said, "Hey, Martin family, I get what you're feeling. I can understand it because I could have been similarly positioned." Nothing about Zimmerman. Nothing about guilt or innocence. Nothing about the law or criminality or anything else. So, tell me, how did he divide anyone? How did he offend those who thought Zimmerman was innocent?

"I don't think Zimmerman committed a crime!"
"Obama's son might have looked like Trayvon!"
"Are you calling me a racist?"
You see the silliness there?

Also, if you really want to get picky, Obama never mentioned race, not in his first speech. Maybe he thought his son would have looked like Trayvon because they'd both be tall and spindly.

[Anonymous]

Wow, you are going to real lengths to defend this guy. The President's job is to represent all people regardless of race, looks etc. By bringing up any comparison, he's taking sides

[Anonymous]

So where do we place these kids?

With all due respect, one such place was recently closed down b/c there were no funds to keep it running. The kids were taken from their families and were cared for by social workers and psychologists. They were trained in a trade and attended the local high school. It was a success until the funding stopped.

And I'm ending this now, as you're too damaged to work on. And FWIW, you're the one who appears to need the help, as you give me the impression of someone so tightly wound, s/he would snap in a minute.

If you have kids, don't think you're not rubbing off on them. Damaged goods . . .

Anonymous wrote:

With all due respect, you should read the research (incidentally, my friend's brother was heavily involved) on this. Summary: Changing the environment through the use of boarding schools (i.e. removing them from the home) was the only thing that really had an effect. The parents and their home environment IS the problem and liberals who 'want to find out what makes them tick' are failing miserably (using my tax dollars, I might add).

You can spend eons trying to figure out the 'why are they like this'. You're much better off addressing the how to change it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you are going to real lengths to defend this guy. The President's job is to represent all people regardless of race, looks etc. By bringing up any comparison, he's taking sides

But that's the thing... he's not. He's not taking sides. There were no sides in the, "Should we sympathize with the Martin family?" debate. Well, there were. A small group of assholes on one side and the vast majority of decent people on the other.

Were women who connected with his mother "taking sides"?

You've yet to substantiate your point. You're attempting to deflect my question instead of answer it. I will ask one more time before dismissing you for the bumper-sticker-touter you are: How were the President's remarks divisive?

[Anonymous]

BO made it national news. BO should comment on this, just as he did the black girl shot in Chicago last year. If he does for one race, he should do for all.