shoes_untied

Good points, John. If this were to go to a civil trial, the defense would mop the floor with Michael Brown's family. What facts are you guys basing this judgement on related to his grandmother raising him? Based on what I read, he was raised in a home with both of his parents and grand parents under the same roof, then when his parents split up he lived with his mom and grand parents, then in mid high school his mom needed to move and he stayed living with his grand parents so that he didn't have to change schools late in high school. Not a perfect family but "thug" really? I doubt any of us have perfect families either.

The reference to civil rights hero was to Marion Berry. No, I am referring to the way that Michael Brown is being held up as a symbol of the Civil rights struggle and how that he will heralded as if he were on the same level as Rosa Parks or other civil rights pioneers who actually deserve the respect they get. the one making this about race evidently is you. The fact is that this entire conflict has nothing to do with race. I don't support Darren Wilson because he is white, but because he is unfairly characterized as a racist white cop who brutally murdered an unarmed black boy. It is the protesters that inserted race into this. The Grand Jury correctly ruled that there is no reason to indict Wilson, that there is no evidence of a racial hate crime having been committed by him. But the thugs in the street wanted blood and an indictment no matter what. To them, Wilson is guilty till proven innocent and they intended on protesting even if they got the indictment they wanted. This is not about justice, but thuggery. They have shown their true colors and have shown that they are not interested in truth, only revenge, be it just or not. So don't even try to play the race card with me. I don't hold up Michael Brown as any kind of hero either and I haven't met anyone who has so that is a bit of a straw horse statement to object to that. (sigh) I wasn't referencing YOU. I was referencing how the protesters and some other activists were doing that. Who has made a racial comment that needed to be called out??? I don't see any race baiting on here. See my first post in the thread.

The reference to civil rights hero was to Marion Berry. No, I am referring to the way that Michael Brown is being held up as a symbol of the Civil rights struggle and how that he will heralded as if he were on the same level as Rosa Parks or other civil rights pioneers who actually deserve the respect they get. the one making this about race evidently is you. The fact is that this entire conflict has nothing to do with race. I don't support Darren Wilson because he is white, but because he is unfairly characterized as a racist white cop who brutally murdered an unarmed black boy. It is the protesters that inserted race into this. The Grand Jury correctly ruled that there is no reason to indict Wilson, that there is no evidence of a racial hate crime having been committed by him. But the thugs in the street wanted blood and an indictment no matter what. To them, Wilson is guilty till proven innocent and they intended on protesting even if they got the indictment they wanted. This is not about justice, but thuggery. They have shown their true colors and have shown that they are not interested in truth, only revenge, be it just or not. So don't even try to play the race card with me. I don't hold up Michael Brown as any kind of hero either and I haven't met anyone who has so that is a bit of a straw horse statement to object to that. Race was definitely called out by another poster and I called her out on it and made my comment. I have only been a part of these forums for a short time but it appear that race baiting both flagrant and dressed in thinly veiled derivative concerns seem to go unchecked here.

The reference to civil rights hero was to Marion Berry. I think it is ironic that many the same people ranting about violence in Ferguson in the social media sphere largely dismissed his death this past weekend as removing a worthless addict from the world. Marion Berry was definitely one of the Pioneers in the civil rights movement and especially the non-violent protest part. I believe a similar topic was posted on here, ripping on him, post mortem that thankfully got deleted. It seems like when it comes some skin colors have trouble saying anything positive.

Seems like just yesterday social media was trashing civil rights pioneer and first director of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee as good riddance to a worthless crack head. Ah the good old days...oh wait. It was yesterday.

Can you explain who you are referring to as "their". I'm sure it's not a race statement. Probably just talking about kids from broken homes again, not even thinking about race.

Or a blogger knows just how to twist a story to generate ad click revenue. You can see the actual questions here http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/10/31/islam-taught-maryland-high-school/18234923/ and see how the author is twisting things to basically lie about the whole situation. The statement about one God is an example. It's not even a question but most likely the author is creating a lie about the response given in the question about the similarities between islam and Chrisitanity. The response is that they both believe in one (quantity one) God. A dishonest person who knows what his audience wants to here can turn this into a lie by portraying the answer as one (the same) God even though it is pretty obvious that is not what is meant by the answer. BTW, note that this question implies that the students also have to learn about Christianity.

Here is the school's press release taken from snopes.com. The lesson had nothing to do with indoctrination. It sounds very similar to what I learned in a comparative religions class in a Christian high school when I was young. I am pleased that a public school is actually allowing religious influence to be included in history lessons. I'll go with having students associate life in the middle east associated with Islam with life in the western democracies influenced by Christianity. I feel pretty confident with students seeing that comparison. Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) social studies curriculum adheres to the Maryland World History curricular standards that are a requirement for all counties in the state. These standards include an analysis of the elements of culture such as art, music, religion, government, social structure, education, beliefs and customs in societies throughout history. Regarding the study of history specifically, the standards also state that students should be able to analyze the customs and beliefs of world religions and their expansion, as well as how their establishment has impacted other areas of culture, and in certain times and regions, even caused conflict. The particular unit in question at La Plata High School is on the formation of Middle Eastern empires in which students learned the basic concepts of the Islamic faith and how it, along with politics, culture, economics and geography, contributed to the development of the Middle East. Other religions are introduced when they influence or impact a particular historical era or geographic region. For example, when reviewing the Renaissance and Reformation, students study the concepts and role of Christianity. When learning about the development of China and India, students examine Hinduism and Buddhism. There is also misinformation about why the school issued a No Trespass Order on a parent. This parent threatened to cause problems that would potentially disrupt La Plata High School this morning. To ensure the safety of students and staff at the school, the school administration placed a No Trespass Order on this parent. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/laplata.asp#hYvv1rIBb0QgtgUv.99

I do think that on average press writers are liberal leaning. That is probably the result of a profession that does need to make ends meet to exist. I think news organizations as a whole that have to make a profit are more populist and will run whatever they think will generate traffic. The result of this is that they are a lot like politicians in that there is a lot of incentive to pander to the masses and use shock and awe to attract attention. Regarding the under reporting of black on white vs. white on black hate race based crimes. I think this is correct except that I'm not a conspiracy theorist and don't think this is based on conspiracy. Even though we have come a long way in this country, whites still enjoy considerable more institutional and just arbitrary privilege over blacks. As a result, when you have white on black race based crime there is an added dimension. People are disappointed in both the crime and that a race that enjoys much privilege would resort to this type of thing. That makes it more newsworthy. It is less surprising to people when a group that does not enjoy the same institutional and arbitrary privilege resorts to violence because they have fewer other outlets to express rage. As a result black on white race based crime raises fewer eye balls, and tends to be less news worthy to those who make money in that business. Your statistic about more blacks being convicted than whites which, despite the misapplication of other stats you present, I will assume are correct likely is evidence of institutional privilege. Arrested blacks are less likely to be able to afford good legal counsel, are subject to more visceral negativity to juries, etc... A final irony here is that you say that race baiting just encourages more violence yet this whole discussion was launched from a tea party article that was a flagrant example of race baiting, contained falsehoods, and yet it has received unanimous support from every poster except me.

I am not ignoring that at all. I have no argument with the your conclusions about the affect of fatherless families. My response was to you misrepresenting race based statistics and declaring that it was evidence of liberal media bias.

That link does not work. I think this is the story you attempted to post. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/02/11507850-questions-raised-over-virginia-newspapers-delay-in-report-of-attack-on-reporters?lite Thanks! In a world of Google where you can always find an example to support whatever you want to believe, you are going back 2 1/2 years to find an example which suggest to me that whites are not undergoing a bombardment of suspected hate crimes. Sure this does appear to be suppressing a potentially racially charged issue but it does not mean that racism is one sided. If what you are saying is that racism favors others ethnicities over whites that is a completely different statement than saying it only goes in one direction. Whether or not it is slanted against whites is something worth debating that you and I probably don't agree on but is always good discussion. Regarding the article. There really doesn't seem to be evidence that this is anything other than an assault. There isn't any evidence of racial motivation so I don't see how it would be prosecuted as a hate crime. However, yeah, I agree it does look like the news suppressed it because it was black on white.

If whites make up 72% of the population but represent 69% of the arrest then they are being arrested at a lower rate than their percentage of the population. If Blacks make up 28% of the rests but only make up about 14% of the population then they are being arrested at twice the rate of their population. That is not liberal media bias, that is people who understand mathematics stating facts.

Fair enough. The view is very dominant in the Tea Party although I'm sure there are some who disagree. Glad to know you are against sweeping generalizations. Hmm. Im in favor of the tea party and I have an interracial marriage. We have not experienced racism within the tea party. You endorsed the racially drawn generalization that racism in this country is one-sided. That was not what was claimed. No one said that racism in the US is one sided. The article draws attention to the fact that the liberal media only finds their outrage at hate crimes if they think they can pin the hate crime on white people against African Americans. When the hate crime is black on white, that doesn't get any coverage and there is a history of this disparity. People like Sharpton and Jackson only speak out against hate crimes if the victim is African American. They never find any outrage when the perpetrator is black and the victim is white or if the victim is African American or any other race. Actually... "but there's nothing inaccurate about the statement that there is one sided racism in america." by LadyC followed by: "What she said." by Ayin Jade You appear to be spoiling for a fight. I refuse to be a part of that. Those who know me know who and what I am. I am not spoiling for anything and you have already participated in the discussion. I am the first person on this thread that disagreed with the original post. Sorry if that feels threatening but I'm assuming the forum welcomes contrary opinions and does not consider that spoiling for a fight.

Fair enough. The view is very dominant in the Tea Party although I'm sure there are some who disagree. Glad to know you are against sweeping generalizations. Hmm. Im in favor of the tea party and I have an interracial marriage. We have not experienced racism within the tea party. You endorsed the racially drawn generalization that racism in this country is one-sided. That was not what was claimed. No one said that racism in the US is one sided. The article draws attention to the fact that the liberal media only finds their outrage at hate crimes if they think they can pin the hate crime on white people against African Americans. When the hate crime is black on white, that doesn't get any coverage and there is a history of this disparity. People like Sharpton and Jackson only speak out against hate crimes if the victim is African American. They never find any outrage when the perpetrator is black and the victim is white or if the victim is African American or any other race. Actually... "but there's nothing inaccurate about the statement that there is one sided racism in america." by LadyC followed by: "What she said." by Ayin Jade

Fair enough. The view is very dominant in the Tea Party although I'm sure there are some who disagree. Glad to know you are against sweeping generalizations. Hmm. Im in favor of the tea party and I have an interracial marriage. We have not experienced racism within the tea party. You endorsed the racially drawn generalization that racism in this country is one-sided. That is racist so get a mirror if you want to see it. I accept the fact that all races are racist based on the fact that skin color does not dictate the existence of some of our shortcomings as a human race. That is not a racist belief. Being in an interracial marriage is not a "get out of jail free" card from being a racist.

It is very inaccurate to say that there is one sided racism in america. Racism exists in abundance behind every skin color. Whites rallying against racism against whites is so common in this country (the entire tea party is in on it) that no single person is newsworthy yet it is portrayed here as though nobody is sticking up for whites. That is both inaccurate and embarrassingly whiny to many of us. Nothing from the TEA Party has ever been racist. Cite one racist thing the TEA Party has done. (And no, opposing Obama's looney policies is not "racist.") I find it odd that an African American president was elected by a white majority and yet people like you whine about racism coming from whites. America is the best place in teh world to be an African American. The richest woman in the United States is African American (Oprah Winfrey). Most of our greatest athletes and well known musicians are African American. Chris Rock is considered the funniest comedian in the United States. White Americans have voted in the first Hatian American to congress and the first African American senator since Reconstruction. Honestly to claim that whites in America are racist defies the observable evidence. The United States isn't perfect and we have some racist nuts in this country, but by in large, the US is very welcoming of different races, ethnicities and cultures I did not say that only whites in America are racist. I said that all races were racist. If you deny that, then you are ignoring observable evidence. I would agree though that America is a great place to be an African American if not the best. The opportunity here is like no other regardless of race. Obama was not elected by me. I voted for McCain and then Romney. The tea party platform is not inherently racist but just about all of my tea part friends have made sure I knew about this story that I probably wasn't aware of because the liberal media was suppressing it. Give me a break. Can I go for at least an hour without being notified by my right wing friends that I probably haven't hear about this. The fact of the matter is, is that most, if not all of the sites propelling the misleading blog post forward also have strong tea party views. Nothing against the Tea Party they've brought some good things to the table but their is not denying there is a strong cross over with the people who have accepted and re-posted this misleading (which has all but been admitted to in the replies to my post) without checking the facts.

Fair enough. The view is very dominant in the Tea Party although I'm sure there are some who disagree. Glad to know you are against sweeping generalizations.

It is very inaccurate to say that there is one sided racism in america. Racism exists in abundance behind every skin color. Whites rallying against racism against whites is so common in this country (the entire tea party is in on it) that no single person is newsworthy yet it is portrayed here as though nobody is sticking up for whites. That is both inaccurate and embarrassingly whiny to many of us.

This has nothing to do with the inaccuracy of the statement at the start of this thread or the integrity of the original blogger.

"Of course, nobody yet knows the motive behind this heinous crime; but then again, nobody bothered to ask about the motive before Sharpton, Jackson, Attorney General Eric Holder and the partisan media pounced on the shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown." This is nonsense. We knew the motives in the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown stories right-a-way because self defense was claimed immediately. This claim combined with the fact that both victims were unarmed is what made this a news story. We don't know who killed this little girl yet so we don't know the motive. Other than the blog post you quote that has been re-blogged all over the web, I have not even seen reports indicating that we know the shooters were black. I have no reason to think the are or aren't but based on the lack of integrity in the rest of the post, I wouldn't be surprised it the claim is being based on the bloggers own desire to race bait. The blogger claims that the media is downplaying it as a targeted hit and instead as a stray bullet is an outright lie. Look at any of the actual news stories. It is actually just the opposite. It is the police saying they don't believe it was targeted at this family.