<<Let me give you a quckl reality lesson, Tee. People can FEEL anything. There's frequently no rhyme or reason for someone to feel some emotion. Using feelings vs one's own thought process is one of the biggest flaws to liberal ideology, since so much is based on good intentions to make one feel better, but damn the consequences of the actions/proposals, so long as it makes one feel good about it. >>
First of all, the issue is dead because as Ami has pointed out, apparently the kid's asking permission was meant as a joke, not because he really felt he needed permission. If he had NOT been joking, your point that "there's frequently o rhyme or reason for someone to feel some emotion" is (like pretty much everything you say) absurdly unreal and truly indicative of someone who has no real experience of life - -of course most emotions or feelings are based on something and in this particular case, if the kid HAD felt the need to ask for permission to sit under the tree, the only logical reason he would have felt the need to ask would have been the underlying racism of the society - - which, BTW, is quite real, as demonstrated by the other factors in the case - - the nooses, the actions of the Sheriff and D.A. and the selective prosecutions and obvious abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
<<Which is course is 100% PURE SPECULATION [referring to school policy as perceived by black students, based on what I then assumed in the absence of contrary evidence was a real need to ask permission to sit under the tree] with not a shred of evidentiary back-up, again . . .>>
standard sirs modus operandi - - the "not a shred of evidence" malarkey, after all of the evidence, in this case, the nooses, the prosecutor's and sheriff's actions and the relatively benign school reaction to the nooses, had all been laid out in painstaking detail by myself and other posters in this very thread. sirs' belief is, if the evidence is against you, don't argue with it, just claim that it does not exist, and maybe there's one imbecile in 1,000 (likely an illiterate) who will be taken in by the denial.
<<much liked the Bush lied garbage. It's basically what you want it to be...or should I say, its your feeling that this is how it went down. >>
The Bush "garbage" is basically an iron-clad case that he lied the country into war, which I would think most normal people have come to accept as self-evident. The circumstantial case for a lie (which, short of a confession or a tape of the lie's actually being planned or discussed, is the ONLY kind of a case it's possible to have) is overwhelming. Once again, defeated in every discussion of the actual issue, with all cards on the table, sirs resorts to the back-door tactic of ignoring all the evidence that proves Bush lied, denies the existence of any such evidence, and tries to pull it off in a one-word indictment ("garbage") as if, by calling it garbage, sirs has finally settled the issue once and for all. Pathetic.
<<Which simply adds even more layers of non-substance to your end of the discussion>>
Right, windbag. It (what, exactly?) "simply adds even more layers of non-substance," why? Why because sirs says so, of course. You are so full of shit. If you want to attack something I said, fine. But you'll have to do a lot better than just calling it "garbage" or "adds more layers of non-substance." You'll have to lay out your reasons. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You already did that, and I wiped the floor with them. Sorry.
