Anonymous wrote:I did see pictures of the clock on NPR. Not excusing the school, but it did look like a bomb. I think they could have asked the kid more about it in detail thought instead of arresting him.

Anonymous wrote:Why have we not seen/heard the name of the teacher, administrators and police officer involved. These people should never work again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:

How do you know that the clock wouldn't be allowed through airport security? It very likely would have been subject to examination, but there is nothing dangerous about it so I don't know why it wouldn't be allowed through.



There is nothing dangerous about a liter of water either, and it's not allowed through.


Yes, there is an explicit rule about that. Similarly, my son recently had his toothpaste confiscated. But, can you point to a similar rule regarding clocks?

LOL airport security missed 95% of the guns, knives, etc in recent test of airport security.

Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:

How do you know that the clock wouldn't be allowed through airport security? It very likely would have been subject to examination, but there is nothing dangerous about it so I don't know why it wouldn't be allowed through.



There is nothing dangerous about a liter of water either, and it's not allowed through.


Yes, there is an explicit rule about that. Similarly, my son recently had his toothpaste confiscated. But, can you point to a similar rule regarding clocks?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was a set up in the part of the boy and his dad. His interviews have been interesting

Right, a Muslim can't be mistreated. But, if a Muslim is mistreated, he must've brought it upon himself as some part of a evil scheme. That's those scheming Muslims for you.

It is really shocking how little shame you have in displaying your Islamophobia.

I was on your page yesterday. After listening to what this kid is saying in his media whirlwind, it's making me think otherwise.

I really don't know what your point is. As best I can tell, you think that because Ahmed's father is some sort of activist, this entire thing was a set-up. To what end?

But, let's discuss some things that we know are set-ups. All the O'Keefe videos that set up Acorn and others. You liked those videos didn't you? The videos coming out about Planned Parenthood were set-ups with the photographers adapting false identities. You are a great fan of those videos, are you not?

I don't think the incident with the clock was a set-up. But, I think you are a giant hypocrite for using that as an excuse to "think otherwise" about a situation that was clearly mishandled.

NP. Jeff, please, don't be dense. To what end? To the end they are experiencing! Ahmed himself said he "never thought it would get this far." You can take that a number of ways.

CNN interviews, trip to the White House, MIT calling, media fawning .... not bad for low-key risk, when all the chips fall in place.

Anonymous wrote:I just have a question about this. Regarding aviation security, lots of people like to say better safe than sorry. Therefore, this clock would have never been allowed through a checkpoint, and frankly, it would be stupid of someone to try and be unaware of the consequences.

With school security a hot topic now, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in the situations. Regardless of his race or religion, why would someone think it would be a good idea to bring this into a physical location where people are paranoid?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
How do you know that the clock wouldn't be allowed through airport security? It very likely would have been subject to examination, but there is nothing dangerous about it so I don't know why it wouldn't be allowed through.

There is nothing dangerous about a liter of water either, and it's not allowed through.

Yes, there is an explicit rule about that. Similarly, my son recently had his toothpaste confiscated. But, can you point to a similar rule regarding clocks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A seven year old boy got suspended for throwing an imaginary grenade in a box with pretend evil forces inside. BWHAHAHHAAA. Liberals are hilarious!

I'm sure that was a scheme cooked up with the imaginary voices in your head.

Me and the Huff Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/colorado-alex-evans-suspended-imaginary-grenade_n_2625409.html

"Evans was playing a game of his own making, called "rescue the world," when he tossed the imaginary grenade into a make-believe box filled with something evil, making explosion sound effects, the station reports.

The school's principal, Valerie Lara-Black, reportedly called Watkins Friday afternoon to inform her of Evans' suspension, confirming that the second-grader did not have anything in his hand at the time, according to the Loveland Reporter-Herald."

And that's just ridiculous to suspend a kid for that. Do you think liberals are the only people who suspend children from school unnecessarily, original pp? You sound like you care more about attacking liberals than you care about what happens to these kids who are unjustly suspended from school.

No conservative would suspend a kid for this. Guaranteed. Because no conservative sees an issues with imaginary weaponry - or PopTart weaponry - or finger weaponry - or even Lego weaponry. I say 'liberals' because they are the ones with the agenda in this regard. The principal in my son's school would probably laugh, join in the game, or at the very worst, direct his energies in a different direction. The idea of suspending this kid would not cross his mind.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just have a question about this. Regarding aviation security, lots of people like to say better safe than sorry. Therefore, this clock would have never been allowed through a checkpoint, and frankly, it would be stupid of someone to try and be unaware of the consequences.

With school security a hot topic now, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in the situations. Regardless of his race or religion, why would someone think it would be a good idea to bring this into a physical location where people are paranoid?

How do you know that the clock wouldn't be allowed through airport security? It very likely would have been subject to examination, but there is nothing dangerous about it so I don't know why it wouldn't be allowed through.

Regarding the school, I guess it can't be said enough. Nobody thought it was a bomb. Maybe you think it looks like a bomb, or maybe you think it looks like a ham sandwich. Either way, it doesn't matter because nobody at the school thought it was a bomb. For some reason, even though they knew it was not a bomb, they expected an explanation beyond "it is a clock". The police have been very explicit on that point. So, the question is, "why did they not accept the explanation that it was a clock and why were they so sure that there was a 'wider explanation'"? The most obvious answer is that he is Muslim.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was a set up in the part of the boy and his dad. His interviews have been interesting

Right, a Muslim can't be mistreated. But, if a Muslim is mistreated, he must've brought it upon himself as some part of a evil scheme. That's those scheming Muslims for you.

It is really shocking how little shame you have in displaying your Islamophobia.

I was on your page yesterday. After listening to what this kid is saying in his media whirlwind, it's making me think otherwise.

I really don't know what your point is. As best I can tell, you think that because Ahmed's father is some sort of activist, this entire thing was a set-up. To what end?

But, let's discuss some things that we know are set-ups. All the O'Keefe videos that set up Acorn and others. You liked those videos didn't you? The videos coming out about Planned Parenthood were set-ups with the photographers adapting false identities. You are a great fan of those videos, are you not?

I don't think the incident with the clock was a set-up. But, I think you are a giant hypocrite for using that as an excuse to "think otherwise" about a situation that was clearly mishandled.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just have a question about this. Regarding aviation security, lots of people like to say better safe than sorry. Therefore, this clock would have never been allowed through a checkpoint, and frankly, it would be stupid of someone to try and be unaware of the consequences.

With school security a hot topic now, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in the situations. Regardless of his race or religion, why would someone think it would be a good idea to bring this into a physical location where people are paranoid?

How do you know that the clock wouldn't be allowed through airport security? It very likely would have been subject to examination, but there is nothing dangerous about it so I don't know why it wouldn't be allowed through.

Regarding the school, I guess it can't be said enough. Nobody thought it was a bomb. Maybe you think it looks like a bomb, or maybe you think it looks like a ham sandwich. Either way, it doesn't matter because nobody at the school thought it was a bomb. For some reason, even though they knew it was not a bomb, they expected an explanation beyond "it is a clock". The police have been very explicit on that point. So, the question is, "why did they not accept the explanation that it was a clock and why were they so sure that there was a 'wider explanation'"? The most obvious answer is that he is Muslim.

Who called the cops?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
How do you know that the clock wouldn't be allowed through airport security? It very likely would have been subject to examination, but there is nothing dangerous about it so I don't know why it wouldn't be allowed through.

There is nothing dangerous about a liter of water either, and it's not allowed through.