Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
Naturewoman4
"White Boy Bleed Alot": 12-yr old White Boy Bullied- Killed: Media Hides Race of the Two Thugs Who Killed Him
March 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM

This is a further discussion on the thread of the boy that was beaten by 2 classmates & died.  I don't usually like to put up post about race, but since we are always seeing posts on what a White person has done to a Black person we need to hear the other stories. I feel that this needs to be brought up.  Justice has to be for ALL, not for just some. These 2 Black boys were only suspended for 2 days.  Why?  The Black communities are always angered about our Justice System.  How about this? 

1 of the 2 tormenters punched him so hard that he broke the boy's nose & left him with a concussion.  The school only suspended the boys for 2 days.  Questions are being raised that maybe it's the "Quotoas for Black discipline".  That Obama has implemented it in his "August Executive Order". 

  I'm sure this thread will not get the proper discussion, but there will be angry posts towards me as usual.   But, for those that just want to discuss what is going on in America, why the Media is leaving out the race of these classmates.  Yet when it comes to stories of conerning violence & Whites, Whites are always in the title of a thread. 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/03/06/media-hides-race-or-the-two-thugs-who-killed-him/

or try:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/03/06/white-boy-bleed-alot-12-year-old-white-boy-

 

**As usual I'm having trouble with put up links, I will try to continue to fix this**

 

 

Replies

  • Goodwoman614
    March 10, 2013 at 12:57 AM



    Quoting futureshock:

    Quoting Goodwoman614:


    Oh my f*cking doG... Have you no shame? Dignity? Pride? 

    To scream butthurt to this degree, when all brookie c. did was answer a fucking question?

    You are getting your ass handed to you by someone who is polite, courteous and respectful, but also smart as hell, quite capable of thinking rationally, and possesses enough perseverance to continually wade through the false comparisons, backtracking, equivocating and oh yes: the shitstorm of sloppy thinking/logical fallacies you continue to puke up onto this thread like my old tomcat did hair balls.

    AND she does you the courtesy of taking you at face value, which I won't. I know you're full of shit, pretending to be 'concerned' about this that & t'other, when in reality you are just a simpleminded garden variety bigoted a$s white American who DOES NOT CARE to take themselves to task for the racist lens they willfully insist on living their lives peering through..

    ***puke***

    That was beautiful!!! :)


    Why thank you!




  • jllcali
    by jllcali
    March 10, 2013 at 1:05 AM
    I agree it was beautiful. I'm mobile and keep getting sidetracked looking for your post so I can like it. So here is my like.

    Quoting Goodwoman614:




    Quoting futureshock:

    Quoting Goodwoman614:


    Oh my f*cking doG... Have you no shame? Dignity? Pride? 

    To scream butthurt to this degree, when all brookie c. did was answer a fucking question?

    You are getting your ass handed to you by someone who is polite, courteous and respectful, but also smart as hell, quite capable of thinking rationally, and possesses enough perseverance to continually wade through the false comparisons, backtracking, equivocating and oh yes: the shitstorm of sloppy thinking/logical fallacies you continue to puke up onto this thread like my old tomcat did hair balls.

    AND she does you the courtesy of taking you at face value, which I won't. I know you're full of shit, pretending to be 'concerned' about this that & t'other, when in reality you are just a simpleminded garden variety bigoted a$s white American who DOES NOT CARE to take themselves to task for the racist lens they willfully insist on living their lives peering through..

    ***puke***

    That was beautiful!!! :)



    Why thank you!




  • brookiecookie87
    March 10, 2013 at 1:05 AM


    If you believe that-Why would I switch to the later ones that state he was hit more than once? Does him getting hit more than once back up my assertions better?

    Not assumptions. Unlike you I base what I say on the information we have. If no one is reporting he was hit multiple times I am not going to assume he was hit multiple times. If statements start being released that he was hit multiple times. Then what I say should reflect that change.

    If you want to believe one instance will classify someone as a thug-That is your choice. That is your opinion and we will have to agree to disagree on that.

    I have read it. I suggest you read it as well.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am

    It does not give Quotoas for Black discipline like Naturewoman4, or her article suggest. Well at least her article is more honest than her since it ends the sentence, "Or something" after stating the comment about quotas.

    Quoting masonmomma:

    So you went with the report that better backs up your own assumptions.

    Fine fine, ill throw you a bone here. I was wrong about my other assumptions on why I called them thugs... you're right. Now, ill say they are thugs because they decided to jump another kid.

    Nothing to do with equality? Have you read the executive orders? And you want to act like that is ok and could not possibly lead to thugs not getting in trouble when they should because they happen to be black. Have uyou read any affirmative action policies? Hell im pretty sure you also were involved in the post concerning employers no longer being able to use criminal records as a way or determining whether or not to hire. Those things are fair those things aren't racist?


    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Different reports suggest different things. I decided to go with the one that uses the most since that is what the newest ones suggest. How is that funny to you? Do you believe I should cling to outdated old information in the fast of new information?

    It's kind of like at the start of the topic when everyone believed the 2 kids jump and killed the kid in the fight and only got a 2 day suspension because that is what the link Naturewoman4 posted says. Then we learned that only one kid hit him.

    And later reports have said that the kid hit him a few times.

    That is the way information works. As it comes out, what you say about it changes.

    That has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with evidence and proof.

    Proof came out that suggested he hit him more than once. So I changed my stance to he hit him more than once.

    You ASSUME the hit is related to the death. You ASSUME he he is a thug. You ASSUME he listens to gangster rap. You ASSUME he wants to be a thug and wear it as a badge of honor.

    There is nothing to back that up. If a report came out that the kid has a history of violent behavior and has gang tattoo's then yes I would change what I say about that as well. That is how information works.

    That is not ass backwards. That is way information is suppose to work.

    Your way is backwards. You have no proof for a lot of your assumptions. But you still cling to them as hard as you can.

  • brookiecookie87
    March 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM

    racĀ·ism

    [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA

    noun

    1.
    a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

    Do you see the mention of any color in that sentence?

    Notice they use the word race. Any person of any color can fit that description.

    A black person who believes they are superior and has the right to rule others would be racist.
    A white person who believes they are superior and has the right to rule others would be racist.
    A person of any specified color who believes they are superior and has the right to rule others would be racist.

    If someone is white the defintion of racism doesn't change.
    If someone is black the definition of racism doesn't change.

    So yes. Completely serious.

    There is nothing in #1 that suggest that the color of the individual, or the target of the hate changes the definition of racism.

    Quoting masonmomma:

    You're not serious are you?

    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Nothing in last line of #1 suggest the remark depends on the color of the person making the remark, or the target.

    Just that the person believes their own race (Could be any color) is superior and rule others.



  • brookiecookie87
    March 10, 2013 at 1:11 AM



    Quoting Goodwoman614:



    Quoting futureshock:

    Quoting Goodwoman614:


    Oh my f*cking doG... Have you no shame? Dignity? Pride? 

    To scream butthurt to this degree, when all brookie c. did was answer a fucking question?

    You are getting your ass handed to you by someone who is polite, courteous and respectful, but also smart as hell, quite capable of thinking rationally, and possesses enough perseverance to continually wade through the false comparisons, backtracking, equivocating and oh yes: the shitstorm of sloppy thinking/logical fallacies you continue to puke up onto this thread like my old tomcat did hair balls.

    AND she does you the courtesy of taking you at face value, which I won't. I know you're full of shit, pretending to be 'concerned' about this that & t'other, when in reality you are just a simpleminded garden variety bigoted a$s white American who DOES NOT CARE to take themselves to task for the racist lens they willfully insist on living their lives peering through..

    ***puke***

    That was beautiful!!! :)


    Why thank you!

    And thank you for the kind words  ^^


  • Goodwoman614
    March 10, 2013 at 1:18 AM



    Quoting masonmomma:

    So you went with the report that better backs up your own assumptions.

    Fine fine, ill throw you a bone here. I was wrong about my other assumptions on why I called them thugs... you're right. Now, ill say they are thugs because they decided to jump another kid.

    Nothing to do with equality? Have you read the executive orders? And you want to act like that is ok and could not possibly lead to thugs not getting in trouble when they should because they happen to be black. Have uyou read any affirmative action policies? Hell im pretty sure you also were involved in the post concerning employers no longer being able to use criminal records as a way or determining whether or not to hire. Those things are fair those things aren't racist?


    jaw dropjaw drop

    Wow...it is...downright EERIE...super radical, in fact....how much you sound

     J U S T   L I K E...

    ...EXACTLY like our *darling friend* and well known group racist-in-chief...


  • masonmomma
    March 10, 2013 at 1:36 AM
    I have read it. Regardless or its specifications, you think that is ok? You think that is equality? You can't see where that could absolutely be misconstrued by educators. Frankly, wether it have specific numbers or not is irrelevant, it shouldn't not be there to begin with!

    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    If you believe that-Why would I switch to the later ones that state he was hit more than once? Does him getting hit more than once back up my assertions better?

    Not assumptions. Unlike you I base what I say on the information we have. If no one is reporting he was hit multiple times I am not going to assume he was hit multiple times. If statements start being released that he was hit multiple times. Then what I say should reflect that change.

    If you want to believe one instance will classify someone as a thug-That is your choice. That is your opinion and we will have to agree to disagree on that.

    I have read it. I suggest you read it as well.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am

    It does not give Quotoas for Black discipline like Naturewoman4, or her article suggest. Well at least her article is more honest than her since it ends the sentence, "Or something" after stating the comment about quotas.


    Quoting masonmomma:

    So you went with the report that better backs up your own assumptions.



    Fine fine, ill throw you a bone here. I was wrong about my other assumptions on why I called them thugs... you're right. Now, ill say they are thugs because they decided to jump another kid.



    Nothing to do with equality? Have you read the executive orders? And you want to act like that is ok and could not possibly lead to thugs not getting in trouble when they should because they happen to be black. Have uyou read any affirmative action policies? Hell im pretty sure you also were involved in the post concerning employers no longer being able to use criminal records as a way or determining whether or not to hire. Those things are fair those things aren't racist?




    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Different reports suggest different things. I decided to go with the one that uses the most since that is what the newest ones suggest. How is that funny to you? Do you believe I should cling to outdated old information in the fast of new information?

    It's kind of like at the start of the topic when everyone believed the 2 kids jump and killed the kid in the fight and only got a 2 day suspension because that is what the link Naturewoman4 posted says. Then we learned that only one kid hit him.

    And later reports have said that the kid hit him a few times.

    That is the way information works. As it comes out, what you say about it changes.

    That has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with evidence and proof.

    Proof came out that suggested he hit him more than once. So I changed my stance to he hit him more than once.

    You ASSUME the hit is related to the death. You ASSUME he he is a thug. You ASSUME he listens to gangster rap. You ASSUME he wants to be a thug and wear it as a badge of honor.

    There is nothing to back that up. If a report came out that the kid has a history of violent behavior and has gang tattoo's then yes I would change what I say about that as well. That is how information works.

    That is not ass backwards. That is way information is suppose to work.

    Your way is backwards. You have no proof for a lot of your assumptions. But you still cling to them as hard as you can.

  • Radarma
    by Radarma
    March 10, 2013 at 12:30 PM

     Great question, got an answer?

     

    Quoting futureshock:


    Quoting Radarma:

     

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Thug to me means someone who lives a life of crime.

    To some people thug can fit anyone who is violent enough to kill someone for the desire of killing them (I.e. Not accidentally, or defensively).

    The story you linked is drastically different than this one. In that case two people are killed so a woman can have sex with a dead man. The intent to kill is there and they follow through with it.

    That is a completely different case than a kid who punches someone and from later complications dies. I agree that if it comes back that the hit was tied to the death he should be punished further.

    I don't believe accidently killing someone qualifiies someone as a thug. But if it also turns out the kid has a violent history and is always getting in trouble-Then it may fit.

    I believe a parent will say anything to protect their kid.

    Quoting Radarma:

     Would you disagree with the term "thug" in this case?

    YES/NO; if NO, then WHY/WHAT is the diff, brookcook?

    What do YOU think of the FATHER of the young man who beat Bailey? Think his son did "nothing wrong"?

    Let's cut to the chase.

     

     

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

     

    Did you read the article you posted? I don't see any mention of the word thug in the article. If you go to the Cafemom  topic on it no one refers to them as thugs either.

    There is a comment on the article. But that is not part of the article.

    Quoting Radarma:

     Did you post to this one too? And if so, did you get hung up on these sick fucks being referred to as thugs?

     

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284890/Joliet-murders-Teens-3-way-sex-bodies-men-strangled.html?ICO=most_read_module

     

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

     

    Mainly because Naturewoman4 refuses to update or edit her post so people keep coming in thinking two black thugs killed a white kid and only got 2 days suspension for it.

    So people have to keep explaining to them what actually happened.

     

     

     LMFVO, you really are the equivalent of the PC wet dream.

    And you still have NO idea why there are no white flash mobs randomly attacking black folk, right? riiight.

     

    Why are there no white flash mobs killing black people?

     

  • futureshock
    March 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM


    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    If you believe that-Why would I switch to the later ones that state he was hit more than once? Does him getting hit more than once back up my assertions better?

    Not assumptions. Unlike you I base what I say on the information we have. If no one is reporting he was hit multiple times I am not going to assume he was hit multiple times. If statements start being released that he was hit multiple times. Then what I say should reflect that change.

    If you want to believe one instance will classify someone as a thug-That is your choice. That is your opinion and we will have to agree to disagree on that.

    I have read it. I suggest you read it as well.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am

    It does not give Quotoas for Black discipline like Naturewoman4, or her article suggest. Well at least her article is more honest than her since it ends the sentence, "Or something" after stating the comment about quotas.

    Quoting masonmomma:

    So you went with the report that better backs up your own assumptions.

    Fine fine, ill throw you a bone here. I was wrong about my other assumptions on why I called them thugs... you're right. Now, ill say they are thugs because they decided to jump another kid.

    Nothing to do with equality? Have you read the executive orders? And you want to act like that is ok and could not possibly lead to thugs not getting in trouble when they should because they happen to be black. Have uyou read any affirmative action policies? Hell im pretty sure you also were involved in the post concerning employers no longer being able to use criminal records as a way or determining whether or not to hire. Those things are fair those things aren't racist?


    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Different reports suggest different things. I decided to go with the one that uses the most since that is what the newest ones suggest. How is that funny to you? Do you believe I should cling to outdated old information in the fast of new information?

    It's kind of like at the start of the topic when everyone believed the 2 kids jump and killed the kid in the fight and only got a 2 day suspension because that is what the link Naturewoman4 posted says. Then we learned that only one kid hit him.

    And later reports have said that the kid hit him a few times.

    That is the way information works. As it comes out, what you say about it changes.

    That has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with evidence and proof.

    Proof came out that suggested he hit him more than once. So I changed my stance to he hit him more than once.

    You ASSUME the hit is related to the death. You ASSUME he he is a thug. You ASSUME he listens to gangster rap. You ASSUME he wants to be a thug and wear it as a badge of honor.

    There is nothing to back that up. If a report came out that the kid has a history of violent behavior and has gang tattoo's then yes I would change what I say about that as well. That is how information works.

    That is not ass backwards. That is way information is suppose to work.

    Your way is backwards. You have no proof for a lot of your assumptions. But you still cling to them as hard as you can.

    Thank-you for posting the link to the executive order.  THIS is what we should be talking about:

    However, substantial obstacles to equal educational opportunity still remain in America's educational system. African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline and referrals to special education. African American student achievement not only lags behind that of their domestic peers by an average of two grade levels, but also behind students in almost every other developed nation. Over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects. An even greater number of African American males do not graduate with a regular high school diploma, and African American males also experience disparate rates of incarceration.

  • futureshock
    March 10, 2013 at 1:08 PM


    Quoting futureshock:


    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    If you believe that-Why would I switch to the later ones that state he was hit more than once? Does him getting hit more than once back up my assertions better?

    Not assumptions. Unlike you I base what I say on the information we have. If no one is reporting he was hit multiple times I am not going to assume he was hit multiple times. If statements start being released that he was hit multiple times. Then what I say should reflect that change.

    If you want to believe one instance will classify someone as a thug-That is your choice. That is your opinion and we will have to agree to disagree on that.

    I have read it. I suggest you read it as well.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am

    It does not give Quotoas for Black discipline like Naturewoman4, or her article suggest. Well at least her article is more honest than her since it ends the sentence, "Or something" after stating the comment about quotas.

    Quoting masonmomma:

    So you went with the report that better backs up your own assumptions.

    Fine fine, ill throw you a bone here. I was wrong about my other assumptions on why I called them thugs... you're right. Now, ill say they are thugs because they decided to jump another kid.

    Nothing to do with equality? Have you read the executive orders? And you want to act like that is ok and could not possibly lead to thugs not getting in trouble when they should because they happen to be black. Have uyou read any affirmative action policies? Hell im pretty sure you also were involved in the post concerning employers no longer being able to use criminal records as a way or determining whether or not to hire. Those things are fair those things aren't racist?


    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Different reports suggest different things. I decided to go with the one that uses the most since that is what the newest ones suggest. How is that funny to you? Do you believe I should cling to outdated old information in the fast of new information?

    It's kind of like at the start of the topic when everyone believed the 2 kids jump and killed the kid in the fight and only got a 2 day suspension because that is what the link Naturewoman4 posted says. Then we learned that only one kid hit him.

    And later reports have said that the kid hit him a few times.

    That is the way information works. As it comes out, what you say about it changes.

    That has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with evidence and proof.

    Proof came out that suggested he hit him more than once. So I changed my stance to he hit him more than once.

    You ASSUME the hit is related to the death. You ASSUME he he is a thug. You ASSUME he listens to gangster rap. You ASSUME he wants to be a thug and wear it as a badge of honor.

    There is nothing to back that up. If a report came out that the kid has a history of violent behavior and has gang tattoo's then yes I would change what I say about that as well. That is how information works.

    That is not ass backwards. That is way information is suppose to work.

    Your way is backwards. You have no proof for a lot of your assumptions. But you still cling to them as hard as you can.

    Thank-you for posting the link to the executive order.  THIS is what we should be talking about:

    However, substantial obstacles to equal educational opportunity still remain in America's educational system. African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline and referrals to special education. African American student achievement not only lags behind that of their domestic peers by an average of two grade levels, but also behind students in almost every other developed nation. Over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects. An even greater number of African American males do not graduate with a regular high school diploma, and African American males also experience disparate rates of incarceration.

    I made a separate thread about this so we don't derail this conversation.

    http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/18196665/S_O_Post_about_two_black_boys_beating_up_white_boy_what_we_really_should_be_worried_about

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts