Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (158881)	1/25/2003 7:44:34 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580053

Tim Re..There are good explanations for Pickering's actions, 7 years for burning a cross is a very harsh sentence indeed. What I don't understand is the disconnect between burning the flag, and burning the cross. Both are expressions of hate, and if we are thowing people in jail for expressing hate, why just the people who express hatred of a certain minority. Isn't that racist in itself? People are allowed to express hatred of America, blacks are allowed to express hatred of whitey, blacks of Jews, whitey of asians, and vice vera, and nobody cares. It is just when whitey expresses anything about blacks when there is a problem. If we are going to prosecute hate crimes, then all hate crimes should be prosecuted, under the non discrimination clause. If expression is protected under the first amendmant in one instance, then it should be protected under the other.

To: TimF who wrote (158881)	1/25/2003 1:52:06 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580053

I pointed out several valid reasons to D.Ray why the handling of the entire case was suspect You pointed out one or two reasons to think it was slightly unusual. You pointed out zero that would seem to indicate racism. Neither calling for a new trial or trying to get a sentence reduced is evidence of racism even if the defendant is a racist. There are good explanations for Pickering's actions, 7 years for burning a cross is a very harsh sentence indeed. But even if there was no good explanation, the unexplained act is not evidence of racism. Going from trying to help out a defendant to being a racist is a huge leap. There has been no evidence posted here that indicates that Pickering made that leap. Please explain why Mr. Pickering seemingly was unconcerned with the 17 year old's lack of a sentence even though he had shot into the couple's home and was the ringleader but instead Mr. Pickering was most concerned that Swan who was not even his client get a sentence that was proportional to the 17 year old's who got off scott free? At a minimum, his concern was in the wrong place for someone who should be insuring justice for all and meting out punishment equitably. This whole scenario smacks of the good ole boy network at its best.......oh wait, that's right.........Mr. Pickering was a dixiecrat and previously had ties to racists organizations but because no one has done a lie detector test on Mr. Pickering we have to assume he's not a racist. As I said previously, the GOP's standards are pretty weak in this arena and not to be trusted. The evidence that was posted to suggest that Pickering was a racist is less then the evidence that could be grabbed by someone seeking to bash you, that could suggest you are a racist. Taken out of context some of the posts I by you that I remember would seem to support that charge, but I am convinced that it is very unlikely you are a racist and would defend you against anyone trying to make that charge unless they had some real evidence. Real evidence would be something like active membership (or maybe even former membership) in an openly racist organization, record of making racial insults, open hostility to people of a particular race, racist writings, something. Right now its just vapor. With accusations like racism, or child molestation, vaporous evidence is often treated as if it was solid but that is wrong. Earlier in his career, he voted twice to fund an organization committed to stopping integration and when he left the dem. party, he stated that one of his reasons was the party's support on civil rights initiatives. Sorry, big guy, but that's all it takes for me to suspect this man and I don't want him sitting on a court of law in this land. Accordingly, I have emailed my two Senators. ted