!#$#@

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 17, 2004, 12:28 am

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/16/bush. ... index.html

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 17, 2004, 12:51 am

"For 25 years I have strongly advocated that African-Americans and whites should sit down and talk in a positive and constructive manner to try to promote better understanding. This I've done," Pickering said after a meeting with the Mississippi Black Caucus last year, according to the AP.

Funny he left out the fact that the "constructive talks" that he proposed were about the African Americans permanently relocating to Africa...

Can we get a few more covert fascists in power?...This is quite frankly becoming very alarming...And I'm not really known as alarmist...

Y'all have room in Canada? (Just in case I need to leave rapidly...)...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 17, 2004, 11:06 am

That is misleading. I dug up the case in which Pickering supposedly supported cross burning, and here is what I found at the National Review. Disclaimer, I don't know if they are left, right, or what, but here is what they had.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york010903b.asp

Basically it says that the Civil Rights Division Prosecutors brought this case before the judge, 3 white guys burning a cross in the yard of a mixed race couple. Civil rights division plea bargained for two of the three and recommended reduced charges against the first due to a very very low IQ. The second got reduced time due to being 17, and he was the ring leader. The third was about to be sentenced to a 7 year sentence when Judge Pickering made statements that it makes no sense to let the ring leader of a hate crime get off scot free (and he later admitted and pled guilty to having fired a shot through the same couples window too). After debate, the Civil rights prosecutors ended up giving the guy 2 years. Here is his quote ""The recommendation of the government in this instance is clearly the most egregious instance of disproportionate sentencing recommended by the government in any case pending before this court," Pickering wrote. "The defendant [Swan] clearly had less racial animosity than the juvenile." And in hate crimes, you have to prove Racial Animus. Judge Pickering made the right argument here, and even made some nice closing statements to the guy (("You're going to the penitentiary because of what you did. And it's an area that we've got to stamp out; that we've got to learn to live, races among each other. And the type of conduct that you exhibited cannot and will not be tolerated....You did that which does hinder good race relations and was a despicable act....I would suggest to you that during the time you're in the prison that you do some reading on race relations and maintaining good race relations and how that can be done." )), but he still should not have gotten off easy just because the ring leader did. Yea, it was a gross error on the part of prosecutors to have made the plea bargain with him, but that should not be a free ticket to easy street for the other guy.

So while i personally reprimand him for even arguing for a lighter sentence for Swan (the man sentenced to 2 years) just because the ring leader got off by plea bargaining with CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION PROSECUTORS............................I would hardly say he supports cross burning.

As for the second claim that he wanted all African Americans to be shipped to afria, I could not find anything on that but would like to see the evidence if you could link it for me. Right now I am kind of borderline on wether he should be appointed simply because of the controversy surrounding him, even though he has good intentions I do believe. A link showing a quote that he wants blacks to go to africa would obviously decide it for me.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 17, 2004, 2:12 pm

National Review...somewhere right of Atilla the Hun...

Pickering, also somewhere to the right of Atilla...

The back to africa thing was rhetoric not something that he has been documented as saying...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 17, 2004, 2:32 pm

Ah I see. If you can find another article that disputes what really happened in the cross burning case I am interested in seeing it. not trying to call you out or anything, I am interested in what really happened without the spin, to do that, I have to see how the facts are reported from both sides. That one I found was the only one I could find.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 17, 2004, 2:46 pm

Just do some searches on him you can read quite a lot of differing opinions...I live in Louisiana next door and have formed my opinion through numerous articles over the years etc...

I am really concerned about yet another judge who plays fast and loose with the Spirit of the Laws...

In the words of REM..."Jefferson, I think we're lost"...Though they were ostensibly referring to J. Holt...I have great concerns that as a nation we are oscillating well away from individuals having power...

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 17, 2004, 3:08 pm

The National Review? Can you find a more right-wing source than this!?

k, thx

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 17, 2004, 4:38 pm

listen, I stated I did not know if it was right wing or left wing, I also stated that if you could find a source of the cross burning trial that disputed anything in the national review article to please do so. Did you even read the article? probably not. I'm still waiting.

-edit- And please don't confuse my wanting proof of his alleged cross burning support as me backing this guy, if you read my post I clearly stated that I have no opinion as of yet about the man, hence why I am trying to find out what really happened. If this source I linked is a right wing account of the trial, then I want a left wing one as a counter-balance so I can make a sound opinion, and not just a Democratic sound bite and rhetoric.

k,thx

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 17, 2004, 5:44 pm

Well obviously the national review has their own agenda and will go to any lengths to a) support anyone the bush administration appoints to anything, and b) populate scotus with as many white supremacists as possible. You don't have to refute the national review because the national review refutes itself. They are one of the most dishonest legitimate publications in the US.

a black person using the national review to refute whether or not pickering is a racist is almost too unbelievable for me to handle. don't you have even any shame? you know this man considers you a slave race, right?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 17, 2004, 6:38 pm

I said I knew nothing about the national review, I clearly stated that, but you guys are acting like I visit the site all the time. I did a google looking for info on the case, that's the only hit I could find and came from a site I have never heard of nor been to. Someone said they were to thr right, I agreed and asked for more input on the case. I should be ashamed? Again, I am not defending the guy, I don't even know him. I am looking for proof that he is a racist. Can I get some proof instead of more rhetoric and insults? I have no stock in whether or not this guy is a member of the KKK or not, I am just looking for information.

-edit- and where did I defend the national review anyway. All I said about it was show me something that disputes it, that does not mean I am defending it's honor and integrity. If you can show me a freakin word for word case transcript that does not lean to the left nor the right, that would be great too. The point of my post is, look into the case and make your own decision, which is what I am trying to do.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 19, 2004, 3:01 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:3 white guys burning a cross in the yard of a mixed race couple.

I'm currently in a 'mixed race couple' relationship.. I'd love to see 3 white guys burning a cross in front of my place.. there'd be 3 less bullets in one of my guns, or three new dents in a baseball bat. It's funny how people give you dirty looks when you walk around, until you look them in the eye with that "got a fucking problem" look. Fucking closet racists.

The gene pool needs a chlorine shock treatment.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 19, 2004, 4:04 pm

mixer.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » January 19, 2004, 4:30 pm

For lack of an easier source to quote:

http://www.womedia.org/taf_statistics.htm wrote:Interracial families are an ever-growing part of our national landscape. The 2000 Census showed that 2.8 million children under age 18 and nearly 7 million Americans of all ages identify as more than one race. 1

There are more than 4.5 million married and unmarried couples in the United States who are mixed racially or ethnically. 1

1 US Census Bureau of Household and Family Statistics, 2000

This topic is going to become a mute point as the percentage of the population that is of mixed race becomes larger and larger. It will be a much easier world to live in when these issues are of significantly less importance due to racial homogenization.

From a biological perspective, humanity is incredibly inbred as it is compared to other species. This is most likely due to the fact that so very few people made it through the ice age. A unification of our genetic diversity will be a good thing genetically speaking, aside from the obvious cultural benefits.

It sucks that we have still have to rehash this shit in our society(s) after all the opportunities we have had to retify the situation.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 19, 2004, 4:37 pm

Siji wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:3 white guys burning a cross in the yard of a mixed race couple.
I'm currently in a 'mixed race couple' relationship.. I'd love to see 3 white guys burning a cross in front of my place.. there'd be 3 less bullets in one of my guns, or three new dents in a baseball bat. It's funny how people give you dirty looks when you walk around, until you look them in the eye with that "got a fucking problem" look. Fucking closet racists.

The gene pool needs a chlorine shock treatment.

I know exactly how you feel. Grew up with a black father and a half white mother (half puerto rican, but looks 100% white) and the dirty looks we all used to get when going out was pretty shitty. I still remember my parents making dining reservations, only to be denied when we showed up, even though there were seats everywhere. My dad would go balistic, my mom would drag him out and the ride home was always silent as my dad fumed. Back then, my mom would have to make all sorts of social arrangements beforehand to trick them into thinking her husband was white, then we'd show up and most of the time it would be too late for them to turn us down...most of the time. People staring at us and shaking their heads. My pops would always ask them if they had a fucking problem, he's a big dude so he never got a *yes* to his question.

I see a mixed couple out and about and I just smile now, when I reflect on what my parents had to go through. It's pretty common today, but you still get a few dirty looks. Back when I was a kid, not a single white person would let you walk by without at least a glare and a shake of the head. My parents rock, still together as all the people that said they'd never make it are working on their 3rd marriage.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 19, 2004, 5:34 pm

Scottish and Welsh doesn't count?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 20, 2004, 9:51 pm

Not sure of his qualifications for the appointment, but regarding the cross burning incident the basic outline given by the national review article has appeared several other places.

Village Voice article - http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0307/hentoff.php

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin ... lings.html

New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 94DB404482
full text available - http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/May/861.html

Links from a post at the Curmudgeonly Clerk blog (with a couple more links) found here - http://www.curmudgeonlyclerk.com/weblog ... tml#000670 (haven't read the blog before, it was linked to from another blog)

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » January 20, 2004, 10:44 pm

referred to it at times as drunken and foolish prank

Personally I can tell he is a racist just by him calling it a "foolish prank". A foolish prank is putting salt in a sugar jar, not carrying out a hateful, racist symbol of supremecy and oppression onto someone's lawn that terrifies them and traumatizes them for life.

It's like punishing a murderer by saying, "Now jimmy, it's not very nice to skin people alive and rape their children. You silly boy, I don't want to see you do that again" /slap on wrist. "Now go on home before you miss supper"