17 Blacks Burn White Girl Alive

[JQPublic1]

And Sanger became the biggest abortion advocate in the country,

where is your evidence? I gave you mine.... put up or shut up!

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
The re is no evidence the chid was tortuerd with a blow torch or burned alive at all.

No evidence??? HAHAHA. The white kid's body was burned to a crisp, you idiot. And once again the national press blacked out the story since the killer/torturer was black.

You exemplify the very reason I am reluctant to engage stupid people in debate. I will now lower myself to address you...be thankful.

Buy now you should know that I don't usually post things that I cannot back up with supporting evidence.

Testimony in capital murder trial centers on autopsy of child's burned body





August 22, 2013 4:08:49 PM PDT



By Katie McCall



HOUSTON --

Investigators took the stand again on Thursday in the Mona Nelson trial. She's charged with capital murder, accused of killing a 12-year-old boy. relatedlinks

For the first time we heard about the autopsy of Jonathan Foster, whose body was found face down in a ditch and severely burned. Dr. Paul Radelat, a pathologist testifying for the defense, admitted that he had not actually examined Jonathan's body, but merely viewed photographs of the boy's remains and read the forensic pathologist's report. He said we may never know what happened to Jonathan, but he was confident the child was neither strangled nor burned alive.

Dr. Radelat testified, "I believe he was dead by the time he was burned. ? This child was turned into a piece of firewood. ? I can't say with any certainty what burned him. ? There is no clear-cut cause of death."

As for how the child died, there were some theories, but nothing stated as a fact.

Dr. Radelat testified, "You have to think some sort of smothering event. ? It's very difficult to come up with any conclusion, the body was badly charred. Any external evidence was gone. ? We don't have any affirmative evidence that he was smothered, but smothering wouldn't leave any affirmative evidence."

Stupid people like YOU make me have to work too hard.Next time look at the link I provided, idiot! That is why I don't generally respond to dopes who don't follow protocols of good posting and dialogue! Sutpid MF!

So then there is no physical evidence to support the idea that the child died in any other fashion other than being burned to death.

Thank you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And Sanger became the biggest abortion advocate in the country,

where is your evidence? I gave you mine.... put up or shut up!

Page 5 of her own pamphlet "Family Limitation"


http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/AmRad/familylimitations.pdf

"Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called an abortion. No one can doubt that there are times when abortion is justifiable..."

Hence while she claimed to be against abortion as a normal approach to handling pregnancy, she in fact agrees it is an option, and apparently Planned Parenthood regards it that way too as they kill unborn babies and sell their body parts.

 

[JQPublic1]

[
The re is no evidence the chid was tortuerd with a blow torch or burned alive at all.

No evidence??? HAHAHA. The white kid's body was burned to a crisp, you idiot. And once again the national press blacked out the story since the killer/torturer was black.

You exemplify the very reason I am reluctant to engage stupid people in debate. I will now lower myself to address you...be thankful.

Buy now you should know that I don't usually post things that I cannot back up with supporting evidence.

Testimony in capital murder trial centers on autopsy of child's burned body





August 22, 2013 4:08:49 PM PDT



By Katie McCall



HOUSTON --

Investigators took the stand again on Thursday in the Mona Nelson trial. She's charged with capital murder, accused of killing a 12-year-old boy. relatedlinks

For the first time we heard about the autopsy of Jonathan Foster, whose body was found face down in a ditch and severely burned. Dr. Paul Radelat, a pathologist testifying for the defense, admitted that he had not actually examined Jonathan's body, but merely viewed photographs of the boy's remains and read the forensic pathologist's report. He said we may never know what happened to Jonathan, but he was confident the child was neither strangled nor burned alive.

Dr. Radelat testified, "I believe he was dead by the time he was burned. ? This child was turned into a piece of firewood. ? I can't say with any certainty what burned him. ? There is no clear-cut cause of death."

As for how the child died, there were some theories, but nothing stated as a fact.

Dr. Radelat testified, "You have to think some sort of smothering event. ? It's very difficult to come up with any conclusion, the body was badly charred. Any external evidence was gone. ? We don't have any affirmative evidence that he was smothered, but smothering wouldn't leave any affirmative evidence."

Stupid people like YOU make me have to work too hard.Next time look at the link I provided, idiot! That is why I don't generally respond to dopes who don't follow protocols of good posting and dialogue! Sutpid MF!

So then there is no physical evidence to support the idea that the child died in any other fashion other than being burned to death.

Thank you.

JIm. read the link. There is evidence the child as hit or kicked in the chest. The burning was done to get rid of any physical evidence on the body.... read the link....

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
The re is no evidence the chid was tortuerd with a blow torch or burned alive at all.

No evidence??? HAHAHA. The white kid's body was burned to a crisp, you idiot. And once again the national press blacked out the story since the killer/torturer was black.

You exemplify the very reason I am reluctant to engage stupid people in debate. I will now lower myself to address you...be thankful.

Buy now you should know that I don't usually post things that I cannot back up with supporting evidence.

Testimony in capital murder trial centers on autopsy of child's burned body





August 22, 2013 4:08:49 PM PDT



By Katie McCall



HOUSTON --

Investigators took the stand again on Thursday in the Mona Nelson trial. She's charged with capital murder, accused of killing a 12-year-old boy. relatedlinks

For the first time we heard about the autopsy of Jonathan Foster, whose body was found face down in a ditch and severely burned. Dr. Paul Radelat, a pathologist testifying for the defense, admitted that he had not actually examined Jonathan's body, but merely viewed photographs of the boy's remains and read the forensic pathologist's report. He said we may never know what happened to Jonathan, but he was confident the child was neither strangled nor burned alive.

Dr. Radelat testified, "I believe he was dead by the time he was burned. ? This child was turned into a piece of firewood. ? I can't say with any certainty what burned him. ? There is no clear-cut cause of death."

As for how the child died, there were some theories, but nothing stated as a fact.

Dr. Radelat testified, "You have to think some sort of smothering event. ? It's very difficult to come up with any conclusion, the body was badly charred. Any external evidence was gone. ? We don't have any affirmative evidence that he was smothered, but smothering wouldn't leave any affirmative evidence."

Stupid people like YOU make me have to work too hard.Next time look at the link I provided, idiot! That is why I don't generally respond to dopes who don't follow protocols of good posting and dialogue! Sutpid MF!

So then there is no physical evidence to support the idea that the child died in any other fashion other than being burned to death.

Thank you.

JIm. read the link. There is evidence the child as hit or kicked in the chest. The burning was done to get rid of any physical evidence on the body.... read the link....

I did read it and it said repeatedly that the 'cause of death' could not be established due tot he damage from the burning.
So if there is no evidence of cause of death other than the burning, how can it not be the burning?

 

[JQPublic1]

[
The re is no evidence the chid was tortuerd with a blow torch or burned alive at all.

No evidence??? HAHAHA. The white kid's body was burned to a crisp, you idiot. And once again the national press blacked out the story since the killer/torturer was black.

You exemplify the very reason I am reluctant to engage stupid people in debate. I will now lower myself to address you...be thankful.

Buy now you should know that I don't usually post things that I cannot back up with supporting evidence.

Testimony in capital murder trial centers on autopsy of child's burned body





August 22, 2013 4:08:49 PM PDT



By Katie McCall



HOUSTON --

Investigators took the stand again on Thursday in the Mona Nelson trial. She's charged with capital murder, accused of killing a 12-year-old boy. relatedlinks

For the first time we heard about the autopsy of Jonathan Foster, whose body was found face down in a ditch and severely burned. Dr. Paul Radelat, a pathologist testifying for the defense, admitted that he had not actually examined Jonathan's body, but merely viewed photographs of the boy's remains and read the forensic pathologist's report. He said we may never know what happened to Jonathan, but he was confident the child was neither strangled nor burned alive.

Dr. Radelat testified, "I believe he was dead by the time he was burned. ? This child was turned into a piece of firewood. ? I can't say with any certainty what burned him. ? There is no clear-cut cause of death."

As for how the child died, there were some theories, but nothing stated as a fact.

Dr. Radelat testified, "You have to think some sort of smothering event. ? It's very difficult to come up with any conclusion, the body was badly charred. Any external evidence was gone. ? We don't have any affirmative evidence that he was smothered, but smothering wouldn't leave any affirmative evidence."

Stupid people like YOU make me have to work too hard.Next time look at the link I provided, idiot! That is why I don't generally respond to dopes who don't follow protocols of good posting and dialogue! Sutpid MF!

So then there is no physical evidence to support the idea that the child died in any other fashion other than being burned to death.

Thank you.

JIm. read the link. There is evidence the child as hit or kicked in the chest. The burning was done to get rid of any physical evidence on the body.... read the link....

I did read it and it said repeatedly that the 'cause of death' could not be established due tot he damage from the burning.
So if there is no evidence of cause of death other than the burning, how can it not be the burning?

Don't ask me...ask the expert who said those words I quoted in red letters for YOUR benefit!

 

[JimBowie1958]

No evidence??? HAHAHA. The white kid's body was burned to a crisp, you idiot. And once again the national press blacked out the story since the killer/torturer was black.

You exemplify the very reason I am reluctant to engage stupid people in debate. I will now lower myself to address you...be thankful.

Buy now you should know that I don't usually post things that I cannot back up with supporting evidence.

Testimony in capital murder trial centers on autopsy of child's burned body





August 22, 2013 4:08:49 PM PDT



By Katie McCall



HOUSTON --

Investigators took the stand again on Thursday in the Mona Nelson trial. She's charged with capital murder, accused of killing a 12-year-old boy. relatedlinks

For the first time we heard about the autopsy of Jonathan Foster, whose body was found face down in a ditch and severely burned. Dr. Paul Radelat, a pathologist testifying for the defense, admitted that he had not actually examined Jonathan's body, but merely viewed photographs of the boy's remains and read the forensic pathologist's report. He said we may never know what happened to Jonathan, but he was confident the child was neither strangled nor burned alive.

Dr. Radelat testified, "I believe he was dead by the time he was burned. ? This child was turned into a piece of firewood. ? I can't say with any certainty what burned him. ? There is no clear-cut cause of death."

As for how the child died, there were some theories, but nothing stated as a fact.

Dr. Radelat testified, "You have to think some sort of smothering event. ? It's very difficult to come up with any conclusion, the body was badly charred. Any external evidence was gone. ? We don't have any affirmative evidence that he was smothered, but smothering wouldn't leave any affirmative evidence."

Stupid people like YOU make me have to work too hard.Next time look at the link I provided, idiot! That is why I don't generally respond to dopes who don't follow protocols of good posting and dialogue! Sutpid MF!

So then there is no physical evidence to support the idea that the child died in any other fashion other than being burned to death.

Thank you.

JIm. read the link. There is evidence the child as hit or kicked in the chest. The burning was done to get rid of any physical evidence on the body.... read the link....

I did read it and it said repeatedly that the 'cause of death' could not be established due tot he damage from the burning.
So if there is no evidence of cause of death other than the burning, how can it not be the burning?

Don't ask me...ask the expert who said those words I quoted in red letters for YOUR benefit!

Dude, I know that is the opinion of the pathologist who TESTIFIED FOR THE DEFENSE does not want the JURY TO THINK THE WOMAN BURNED A CHILD ALIVE, but there is no physical evidence of any other cause of death, dude.

"Dr. Paul Radelat, a pathologist testifying for the defense, admitted that he had not actually examined Jonathan's body, but merely viewed photographs of the boy's remains and read the forensic pathologist's report. He said we may never know what happened to Jonathan, but he was confident the child was neither strangled nor burned alive.

Dr. Radelat testified, "I believe he was dead by the time he was burned. ? This child was turned into a piece of firewood. ? I can't say with any certainty what burned him. ? There is no clear-cut cause of death."

 

[JQPublic1]

Dude, I know that is the opinion of the pathologist who TESTIFIED FOR THE DEFENSE does not want the JURY TO THINK THE WOMAN BURNED A CHILD ALIVE, but there is no physical evidence of any other cause of death, dude.

If he believes his client is innocent what does it matter if the child was burned alive or not? Another thing...I guess yuo missed the part where they agreed that the child had suffered trauma to the chest area....

Although the body was burned, that doesn't mean burning was the cause of death. BTW, this case is over 5 years old and the woman was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. She was caught on camera dumping the body.

We don't know what killed the child...you cannot say positively that burning was the cause..nevertheless, the child is dead, end of story.

 

[JQPublic1]

So, was George Washington a liberal? Were and the founding fathers liberals?

Yes, for his time he was. For our time he is considered conservative on our current political spectrum.
The willingness to fight for the sovereignty of the people is conservative in our time, but decidedly liberal for then.

I think you are trying too hard to simplify the word conservative and use it universally to define an intangible set of values and belief systems. You can't do it. Most Americans are a mixture of conservative and liberal values. We embrace progress and innovation but also respect the law, family values and social mores, We don't always vote the conservatives in and we don't always vote the liberals in. That makes the system work better when Americans are free to be conservative on somethings and liberal on others.
And most importaly, we can change our minds.

Agreed, as trying to labe past characters with current words is not an easy thing. Cromwell, IMO, is still a leftist radical by our definitions today, though much of his behavior does not fit on the political spectrum.

Margaret Sanger: Humanitarian, Republican, American hero


Sanger would attain global notoriety by addressing the Geneva World Population Conference in 1927. By the dawn of the next decade, no less than fifty-five contraceptive distribution and educational centers had been built across the fruited plains.

During the World War II era, the birth control movement reached the point of comfortable acceptance among medical professionals and the country as a whole. Mainline Protestant denominations no longer considered medical pregnancy prevention to be a sin, and the stigma once associated with this had become more or less relegated to history books.

Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1946 and proudly championed reproductive rights for the rest of her days, but did not support abortion. As time passed, her political views moderated and she became a registered Republican. Believing that generational poverty could be remedied via providing the impoverished with birth control, she pressured legislators to include this in public assistance programs.

Not all Republicans of the 1900 to 1940 era were conservative. And Sanger became the biggest abortion advocate in the country, definately putting her on the liberal end of the spectrum today, as she was then.

She founded Planned Parenthood in 1946 but I want to preserve your response for the record that "
Not all Republicans of the 1900 to 1940 era were conservative". Many of your fellow "conservative republicans hereabouts don't agree with you.

As far as I can tell after reading your link, there is nothing there to suggest she became the biggest abortion advocate in the country. One sentence suggests that she believed that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but she followed that comment by championing the idea that prevention is better than having an abortion. That, to me , does not equate to being the biggest abortion advocate in the country,

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, was George Washington a liberal? Were and the founding fathers liberals?

Yes, for his time he was. For our time he is considered conservative on our current political spectrum.
The willingness to fight for the sovereignty of the people is conservative in our time, but decidedly liberal for then.

I think you are trying too hard to simplify the word conservative and use it universally to define an intangible set of values and belief systems. You can't do it. Most Americans are a mixture of conservative and liberal values. We embrace progress and innovation but also respect the law, family values and social mores, We don't always vote the conservatives in and we don't always vote the liberals in. That makes the system work better when Americans are free to be conservative on somethings and liberal on others.
And most importaly, we can change our minds.

Agreed, as trying to labe past characters with current words is not an easy thing. Cromwell, IMO, is still a leftist radical by our definitions today, though much of his behavior does not fit on the political spectrum.

Margaret Sanger: Humanitarian, Republican, American hero


Sanger would attain global notoriety by addressing the Geneva World Population Conference in 1927. By the dawn of the next decade, no less than fifty-five contraceptive distribution and educational centers had been built across the fruited plains.

During the World War II era, the birth control movement reached the point of comfortable acceptance among medical professionals and the country as a whole. Mainline Protestant denominations no longer considered medical pregnancy prevention to be a sin, and the stigma once associated with this had become more or less relegated to history books.

Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1946 and proudly championed reproductive rights for the rest of her days, but did not support abortion. As time passed, her political views moderated and she became a registered Republican. Believing that generational poverty could be remedied via providing the impoverished with birth control, she pressured legislators to include this in public assistance programs.

Not all Republicans of the 1900 to 1940 era were conservative. And Sanger became the biggest abortion advocate in the country, definately putting her on the liberal end of the spectrum today, as she was then.

She founded Planned Parenthood in 1946 but I want to preserve your response for the record that "
Not all Republicans of the 1900 to 1940 era were conservative". Many of your fellow "conservative republicans hereabouts don't agree with you.

As far as I can tell after reading your link, there is nothing there to suggest she became the biggest abortion advocate in the country. One sentence suggests that she believed that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but she followed that comment by championing the idea that prevention is better than having an abortion. That, to me , does not equate to being the biggest abortion advocate in the country,

meh I used a dash of hyperbole; so sue me

 

[Pogo]

The KKK was not a conservative organization either, as it was deeply committed to eugenics and the open attack on 'Yankee' banks and industrial interests.

Ah, Doublethink lives. How amusing to peer under the lid of the Ignore list now and then to see what sort of absurdities get proffered with a straight face.

The Klan is/was as conservative as it gets. Its orignal impetus was to in effect preserve the Confederacy, and its revival's was to preserve what it called "100% Americanism", against immigrants, Catholics, Jews, blacks, communists, labor unions and loose women. It doesn't get any more conservative than that.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, for his time he was. For our time he is considered conservative on our current political spectrum.
The willingness to fight for the sovereignty of the people is conservative in our time, but decidedly liberal for then.

Actually that's what Liberal essentially means, both then and now. Like it or lump it.

And Sanger was a progressive (i.e. liberal) not a conservative

"Progressive" doesn't mean "liberal". The first high-profile "Progressive" was Teddy Roosevelt and the last was Robert LaFollette. Both Republicans btw.

 

[Tank]

 

[JQPublic1]

This is the suspect that has been indicted in the death of Jessica Chambers.
He looks every bit the stereotypical thug that drives the fear haunting our neighborhoods. But I reserve judgement until after his trial. If the preponderance of evidence causes the grand jury to find him guilty, let the wheels of justice turn quickly.

One man, NOT 17 men, is accused. Nevertheless, the face of evil is once again associated with a Black man guilty or not. I hope he is NOT the guilty party but hope is fleeting even as I type.

Quinton Tellis indicted in Jessica Chambers homicide

 

[Pogo]

This is the suspect that has been indicted in the death of Jessica Chambers.
He looks every bit the stereotypical thug that drives the fear haunting our neighborhoods. But I reserve judgement until after his trial. If the preponderance of evidence causes the grand jury to find him guilty, let the wheels of justice turn quickly.

One man, NOT 17 men, is accused. Nevertheless, the face of evil is once again associated with a Black man guilty or not. I hope he is NOT the guilty party but hope is fleeting even as I type.

Quinton Tellis indicted in Jessica Chambers homicide

---which once again confirms that the original claim in this thread, and its title, are completely full of shit. But we already established that, and it's already exposed for the race-baiting bullshit it is.

Now the master-baiters have moved on to claiming the story's being "covered up" because of the races. We exposed the lie there too.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This is the suspect that has been indicted in the death of Jessica Chambers.
He looks every bit the stereotypical thug that drives the fear haunting our neighborhoods. But I reserve judgement until after his trial. If the preponderance of evidence causes the grand jury to find him guilty, let the wheels of justice turn quickly.

One man, NOT 17 men, is accused. Nevertheless, the face of evil is once again associated with a Black man guilty or not. I hope he is NOT the guilty party but hope is fleeting even as I type.

Quinton Tellis indicted in Jessica Chambers homicide

---which once again confirms that the original claim in this thread, and its title, are completely full of shit. But we already established that, and it's already exposed for the race-baiting bullshit it is.

Now the master-baiters have moved on to claiming the story's being "covered up" because of the races. We exposed the lie there too.

If the OP would spend more time mass debating, she might not need to start so many race baiting threads. She'd prolly have a better attitude and positive outlook.

 

[Tank]

1 down, 16 to go

 

[Pogo]

1 down, 16 to go

Counting up the points on your IQ score? That's always fun.
Soon you can move on to real brain exercises like "find your foot" or "peek-a-boo".

 

[Tank]

Pogo is so mad that they caught the negro

 

[Pogo]

Pogo is so mad that they caught the negro

Yeah ummm.... thread title.