The CJ Pearson strangeness

The kid created a more straight faced version of Stephen Colbert.

But regardless, 13 year olds are 13 year olds, of course he did stupid things.

Any adult that thinks less of a 13 year old because of a tweet is ridiculous.

 

The kid is terribly naive and is trying to make a name for himself through the controversy, however dishonest his methods may be.

 

I still can't figure out the clock kid. Is he that naive? Was he put up to it?

However, this kid is pretty straight forward. I'd vote for him over the clock kid.

 

You can't figure out the clock kid because it's straight forward but your prejudice wants you to believe otherwise so you can reaffirm your narrative.

You can vote for this kid, because even thought he's a lying, loud mouthed brat with little knowledge, he regurgitates talking points that interest you.

Simple as that really.

 

Politically active 13 years old in the USA? How often does that happen?

 

I'm sure his sister is standing off to the side telling him what to say.

/sarcasm

 

The clock kid admitted it looked "suspicious" and like a "threat", and that he set the timer to go off in class. Please. The other kid's bull**** is easier to see through. Educate yourself next time.

 

CJ's not ready for prime time. But, he's only 13. He'll probably do well for himself in the long run.

 

i hope that kid grows out of it. he could end up self loathing like cruz which i suspect is gay and fights impulses every day.

 

How the heck does he know his political views at 13?

At that point all I read was the sports page (Houston Post).

 

Baaaa haaa haa /Thread

 

If anyone is uneducated it is you.

Usually educated people aren't so absorbed with preconceived biases that they lack the ability to call a spade a spade.

 

You blindly assume that someone is basing their views on preconceived biases when they point out legitimate problems with the story based on evidence available....it kind of says a lot about you.

 

I'm not blindly assuming. I'm going off past precedent. It's a trend with him.

You like going the "simplest explanation" possible (which I agree with) based on the "facts available" from what I've seen.

You argued as much very fervently in the Zimmerman case.

I have the same line of thinking for the most part. But I don't only apply it to cases that fit my agenda.

The simplest explanation with the clock kid is that he "made" (I use that loosely) something. He took it to school. It caused a teacher to be suspicious. Then the school and police dept completely mishandled the situation.

That's it.

Anyone trying desperately to come up with a conspiracy theory that suggests nefarious intentions of a 14 year old is grasping at straws at this point (because there is almost zero tangible evidence that suggests that notion to any substantial extent) and nothing has come to light.

And that says a lot more negative things about those people than anything I've said says about me.

 

That was around '90 - '92 for me, between Rodney King and then Clarence Thomas drawing attention to both sexual harassment and affirmative action, and watching some Roe v. Wade TV movie with Holly Hunter a couple of years earlier I was pretty solidly liberal. I didn't actually follow sports that heavily up until then, only started because my parents went to UM so Fab Five and Desmond Howard made it interesting.

 

I provided evidence for my claim - not rhetoric, assumptions and ignorance.

 

I don't know what was worse: your premise, your argument, or your conclusion.