« Descent Into Third-World Chaos Continues | Main | Elton John's Nan Goldin Kiddie Porn Seized »

Ace has some interesting facts about the Jena story that don't fit with the MSM template.

_The so-called "white tree" at Jena High, often reported to be the domain of only white students, was nothing of the sort, according to teachers and school administrators; students of all races, they say, congregated under it at one time or another.

_Two nooses — not three — were found dangling from the tree. Beyond being offensive to blacks, the nooses were cut down because black and white students "were playing with them, pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them," according to a black teacher who witnessed the scene.

_There was no connection between the September noose incident and December attack, according to Donald Washington, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department in western Louisiana, who investigated claims that these events might be race-related hate crimes.

And there is more...

Off-Topic: Katie Couric is "uncomfortable" with patriotism.

When the libs bring down America, they won't be welcome where the rest of US flee to. The only bright spot is that it will be open season on them.

when we finally leave this planet to colonize our own worlds, will there be one planet that holds the original values of America. If so will virgin galaxtic fly me there.

I'll bet that the most money came from guilt-ridden white Liberals. I'll place another bet that the "Jena 6" is supported by Muslims doing their part in the war on America.

So so about THREE MONTHS passed between the noose incident and the beating? I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. Will the prosecuter bring this up at the trial (If it gets that far) and demand to know why it took the "playahs" so long to seek revenge?

"six black goons"???????? WOW!!! I kinda thought it was blown outa proportion but "six black goons"? That's a bit strong ain't it? I bet you wish you could still use the n word almost as much as the Dems wish they could still ask the Bush team to quit betraying us.

Ron Ward
We treat idiots and bullys EQUALY here, no matter what color their skin is. Do you have a PROBLEM with that?

Just callin' a spade a spade...uh, oops, sorry, I mean, nevermind...

Ha Haaaa Haaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

If you posted an article about Hyperhidrosis, excessive sweating, Ron would end his comments on the subject by complaining about how Bush betrayed America.

His lesson for us today is that no one should point out that blacks attack whites in racially motivated violence and that the problems of the Jena 6 can be linked to President Bush.

Welcome to Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Have a nice hysteria!!!!!!

Freedom, obviously you missed the intended meaning of my comment and once again injected your own, suggesting that I blame Bush for any and every unfortunate event. *yawn*.

From my understanding, 1 had a serious criminal record and the others were regular school kids. If you want to label them as "6 black goons" I suppose that's your God given right. I was just saying it was, well, a bit over the top.

Ron, when six Neanderthals beat a defenseless kid unconscious, "goons" is the nicest thing I can think of to call them.

Ron, you used your comment about the Jena 6 for a rambling remark about how everyone should hate Bush, that was completely uncalled for. It was a gratuitous attack and that is sad.

Putting things in context is very difficult for you...

I dont care if all six of those kids were honor students. A racially motivated beating of another human is enough to label someone a goon. Leaving that person for dead is even worse.

Since you brought up the subject, why dont you tell us about how you believe that Petraeus told us the truth at his recent Congressional hearings?

Freedom, I really don't have time to debate with you on how you decide to instruct me on how I think and what I think contingent on how you decide to manipulate my post and create your own spin from them. Perhaps you find it amusing to create your own argument instead of countering in constructive debate. If I'm constantly defending your fabricated rhetoric, that in itself gives you ample time to divert from the truth.

My post:
""six black goons"???????? WOW!!! I kinda thought it was blown outa proportion but "six black goons"? That's a bit strong ain't it? I bet you wish you could still use the n word almost as much as the Dems wish they could still ask the Bush team to quit betraying us."------

From that you stated or said that I said:
"problems of the Jena 6 can be linked to President Bush."
"Ron, you used your comment about the Jena 6 for a rambling remark about how everyone should hate Bush"

And you ask:
"since you brought up the subject, why dont you tell us about how you believe that Petraeus told us the truth at his recent Congressional hearings?"

My statement (read above please) is nowhere near what you claim I stated. Uh, I rambled about how "EVERYONE" should hate Bush??? ? WTF? Can you not read man? Are you illiterate? Mommy reading bits and pieces for you? I'm lost here. I said that Jena was linked to Bush???? When did I say that? TAP TAP TAP!! Is this thing on??

I insinuated that the "Dems wish they could still ask the Bush team to quit betraying us."

I've never mentioned believing or not believing Patreaus so my opinions on that is irrelevant, much like your elementary, non sequitur, and rhetorical nonsense of what I assume you feel is a justifiable rebuttal. Oh, please don't dummy it down again as being misread as you've already used that one. In my world, we weight the pros and cons based on their own merit, much unlike your choice. Uh, did someone say something about moonbats?

Oh, to elaborate a bit on my original statement that "6 black goons" was a bit strong. Be it a high school ruckus that got out of hand or an out of control malicious group of thugs, "6 black goons" really isn't an appropriate way to address the issue, or at least not in my opinion. Obviously, a considerable number of people felt differently as they traveled from all over. Assuming they're wrong, I doubt that "a bunch of "f-----g n-----s" would do much to alleviate the problem or to support your case. I suppose it's the fact that you had to instill that the goons were black as if to imply that a beating such as this from 6 white goons may not have been so bad.

Boy you are really wandering here...

This is what the post said, “six black goons who are being transformed by the media into civil rights heroes as a reward for beating up a white guy”.

In order to describe a racist act of violence it makes sense to describe the race of the attackers of the “white guy”.

Hence, black goons. This is a description so stop hyperventilating. The “N” word would be derogatory or “strong” as you put it. Would “white” goons be strong?

It’s amazing that you accuse me of telling you what to think. I never said such a thing.

Anyways, you included another accusation that I “once again injected my own intended meaning of one of your comments”. So you are clearly alluding to the Petraeus comment in which you have been very evasive about (to put it lightly). You even rubbed salt on the wound by bringing up the subject of ‘betrayal’… (“Dems wish they could still ask the Bush team to quit betraying us”).

And furthermore, you are criticizing the Dems for not criticizing Bush enough in that sentence so my comment that you made “a rambling remark about how everyone should hate Bush” is valid. The term “everyone” is not meant literally. It is sarcasm. Get it? This was just a gratuitous remark that had nothing to do with the Jena 6, but you couldn't control yourself. So you linked your comment about the Jena 6 to Bush. That’s a fair statement. THE CRUX OF ALMOST ALL OF YOUR CRITICISMS OF ME RELIES ON PETTY SEMANTICS.

Finally, since you brought the subject up once again, its only fair to clarify what you have been soooo evasive about. You are so compulsive that you cant stop bringing up the same subject over and over.

Do you think Petraeus was telling the truth at those hearings?

Do I think Petraeus was telling the truth? For the most part, yes, he was likely telling the truth as he knew it. For the other part, I don't know as the Bush administration does have a long history of distorting honesty and reality. I think that a lot of the facts were manipulated by the pentagon such as the number of death going down based on how the individuals died.
General Petraeus’s history also suggests that he is more of a political and partisan person than his press would have us believe. For example, six weeks before the 2004 presidential election, General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed — wrongly,— that there had been “tangible progress” in Iraq, and that “momentum has gathered in recent months.”
In all reality, the surge has done very little other than buy time. General Petraeus is now identified with the surge; if it fails, he fails. He has every incentive to find a way to keep it going, in the hope that somehow he can pull off something he can call success. So, was he telling the truth? What's the truth? If the Bush team continues to live a lie, I suppose to them that lie becomes the truth. If the Pentagon says that civilian causalities are down, but has neither released its numbers nor explained how they’re calculated, I suppose the truth is that they're down. According to a draft report from the Government Accountability Office, which was leaked to the press because officials were afraid the office would be pressured into changing the report’s conclusions, U.S. government agencies “differ” on whether sectarian violence has been reduced. It may be true that deaths in parts of Baghdad are down but there are military officers that believe that it may be an indication that ethnic cleansing has been completed in many neighborhoods and that there aren’t as many people to kill.
Yes, I'm criticizing the Dems for not having the backbone to ask tough questions. It would be good to have a party that could govern instead of the dishonest and cowardly ones that we have.

Although you say that Petraeus “was likely telling the truth as he knew it”, you pretty much confirmed everything I have said.

Look at how you supported that statement. You went on to say, “General Petraeus’s history also suggests that he is more of a political and partisan person than his press would have us believe.” –and– “General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed, wrongly, that there had been “tangible progress” in Iraq…”

Then you used your attacks on the Bush Administration to paint a ‘guilt by association’ picture.

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A ROSE.

Why is it so hard to for you to come clean?

Anyways, are you at all aware of the whole picture on the ground?

The biggest successes that the insurgents have had were against unarmed civilians and the winning of political support from western Liberals, PaleoConservatives, Socialists, Anarchists and NeoNazis.

The propaganda of these useful tools seeks to suppress the true picture on the ground. The Iraqis in much of the Al Anbar province and parts of the Baghdad, Diyala and Salahadin provinces now have reasonable security. The Awakenings and Concerned Citizen groups in those areas have seen Sunni natives forming allied security forces with the coalition, something that has been unheard of until now. Even members of Sunni insurgent groups like the 1920s Brigade and Jaish al-Islami have switched sides to join the Americans. Much of these developments have taken place in the heart of the “Sunni Triangle” so it is indeed an important improvement. It was only made possible by years of hard work. This didn’t just happen overnight. It is something that activists have sought to hide from the American public for political reasons. Accusing Petraeus of doing the very same thing that his tormentors have done is nothing but propaganda.

Such activists have gone so far as to deny the importance of Al Qaeda in Iraq. In almost every front Al Qaeda has taken leadership or a leading role in the insurgency. Despite their small size they have forcibly taken over much of the insurgency. Yet their strong-armed tactics have alienated the general public from the insurgency. It is a huge mistake. That is the truth on the ground, but you wont hear it very often in the media or from the talking heads on the extreme Left and Right.

Here is a link to a map published in April 2006 of the Iraqi provinces. It assesses the security situation of each of the provinces. They are graded by four categories 1. Critical 2. Serious 3. Moderate 4. Stable. Only one province was graded as serious. Care to guess which one?

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/iraq/provincestability460ace.jpg

Go ahead and switch Anbar to moderate and compare the map to one that was published in September 2007… I don’t claim to say that the war is won yet, but to say that important progress has NOT been made would be a lie.

Do I think Petraeus was telling the truth? For the most part, yes, he was likely telling the truth as he knew it. For the other part, I don't know as the Bush administration does have a long history of distorting honesty and reality. I think that a lot of the facts were manipulated by the pentagon such as the number of death going down based on how the individuals died.
General Petraeus’s history also suggests that he is more of a political and partisan person than his press would have us believe. For example, six weeks before the 2004 presidential election, General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed — wrongly,— that there had been “tangible progress” in Iraq, and that “momentum has gathered in recent months.”
In all reality, the surge has done very little other than buy time. General Petraeus is now identified with the surge; if it fails, he fails. He has every incentive to find a way to keep it going, in the hope that somehow he can pull off something he can call success. So, was he telling the truth? What's the truth? If the Bush team continues to live a lie, I suppose to them that lie becomes the truth. If the Pentagon says that civilian causalities are down, but has neither released its numbers nor explained how they’re calculated, I suppose the truth is that they're down. According to a draft report from the Government Accountability Office, which was leaked to the press because officials were afraid the office would be pressured into changing the report’s conclusions, U.S. government agencies “differ” on whether sectarian violence has been reduced. It may be true that deaths in parts of Baghdad are down but there are military officers that believe that it may be an indication that ethnic cleansing has been completed in many neighborhoods and that there aren’t as many people to kill.
Yes, I'm criticizing the Dems for not having the backbone to ask tough questions. It would be good to have a party that could govern instead of the dishonest and cowardly ones that we have.

Do I think Petraeus was telling the truth? For the most part, yes, he was likely telling the truth as he knew it. For the other part, I don't know as the Bush administration does have a long history of distorting honesty and reality. I think that a lot of the facts were manipulated by the pentagon such as the number of death going down based on how the individuals died.
General Petraeus’s history also suggests that he is more of a political and partisan person than his press would have us believe. For example, six weeks before the 2004 presidential election, General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed — wrongly,— that there had been “tangible progress” in Iraq, and that “momentum has gathered in recent months.”
In all reality, the surge has done very little other than buy time. General Petraeus is now identified with the surge; if it fails, he fails. He has every incentive to find a way to keep it going, in the hope that somehow he can pull off something he can call success. So, was he telling the truth? What's the truth? If the Bush team continues to live a lie, I suppose to them that lie becomes the truth. If the Pentagon says that civilian causalities are down, but has neither released its numbers nor explained how they’re calculated, I suppose the truth is that they're down. According to a draft report from the Government Accountability Office, which was leaked to the press because officials were afraid the office would be pressured into changing the report’s conclusions, U.S. government agencies “differ” on whether sectarian violence has been reduced. It may be true that deaths in parts of Baghdad are down but there are military officers that believe that it may be an indication that ethnic cleansing has been completed in many neighborhoods and that there aren’t as many people to kill.
Yes, I'm criticizing the Dems for not having the backbone to ask tough questions. It would be good to have a party that could govern instead of the dishonest and cowardly ones that we have.

What the hell kind of strategy is this? You are repeating the same thing you said before.

Did a moonbat troll just repeat your comment twice and use your name?

Although you say that Petraeus “was likely telling the truth as he knew it”, you pretty much confirmed everything I have said.

Look at how you supported that statement. You went on to say, “General Petraeus’s history also suggests that he is more of a political and partisan person than his press would have us believe.” –and– “General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed, wrongly, that there had been “tangible progress” in Iraq…”

Then you used your attacks on the Bush Administration to paint a ‘guilt by association’ picture.

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A ROSE.

Why is it so hard to for you to come clean?

Anyways, are you at all aware of the whole picture on the ground?

The biggest successes that the insurgents have had were against unarmed civilians and the winning of political support from western Liberals, PaleoConservatives, Socialists, Anarchists and NeoNazis.

The propaganda of these useful tools seeks to suppress the true picture on the ground. The Iraqis in much of the Al Anbar province and parts of the Baghdad, Diyala and Salahadin provinces now have reasonable security. The Awakenings and Concerned Citizen groups in those areas have seen Sunni natives forming allied security forces with the coalition, something that has been unheard of until now. Even members of Sunni insurgent groups like the 1920s Brigade and Jaish al-Islami have switched sides to join the Americans. Much of these developments have taken place in the heart of the “Sunni Triangle” so it is indeed an important improvement. It was only made possible by years of hard work. This didn’t just happen overnight. It is something that activists have sought to hide from the American public for political reasons. Accusing Petraeus of doing the very same thing that his tormentors have done is nothing but propaganda.

Such activists have gone so far as to deny the importance of Al Qaeda in Iraq. In almost every front Al Qaeda has taken leadership or a leading role in the insurgency. Despite their small size they have forcibly taken over much of the insurgency. Yet their strong-armed tactics have alienated the general public from the insurgency. It is a huge mistake. That is the truth on the ground, but you wont hear it very often in the media or from the talking heads on the extreme Left and Right.

Here is a link to a map published in April 2006 of the Iraqi provinces. It assesses the security situation of each of the provinces. They are graded by four categories 1. Critical 2. Serious 3. Moderate 4. Stable. Only one province was graded as serious. Care to guess which one?

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/iraq/provincestability460ace.jpg

Go ahead and switch Anbar to moderate and compare the map to one that was published in September 2007… I don’t claim to say that the war is won yet, but to say that important progress has NOT been made would be a lie.