Skip to comments.
Stokes Rips Ward Lines OK'd by Council [Black Councilman Wants Fewer White Elected Officials]
The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS) ^
| 8/13/03
| Laura Hipp
Posted on 08/24/2003 11:16:30 AM PDT by bourbon
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:28:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
The Jackson City Council approved new ward lines Tuesday amid objections from Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes, who said he wants fewer white elected officials.
Several colleagues quickly countered Stokes' remarks, emphasizing all races are welcome.
The approved plan moves seven voting precincts into new wards, but leaves Ward 7 basically untouched.
(Excerpt) Read more at clarionledger.com ...
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Mississippi
KEYWORDS:
Kenneth Stokes = racist SOB. simple as that.
1
posted on
08/24/2003 11:16:31 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: WKB; MagnoliaMS; MississippiMan; vetvetdoug; NerdDad; Rebel Coach; afuturegovernor; mwyounce; ...
(((MS PING)))
I don't think this was posted while I was on vacation, but it needs to be discussed.
Old Jackson--governed by white, racist crooks.
New Jackson--governed by black, racist crooks.
Don't you just love progress?!? :-)
2
posted on
08/24/2003 11:21:46 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
The council composed of five black officials and two whites is not representative of Jackson, Stokes said. Black residents make up more than 70 percent of the city's population. 5 blacks out of a total of 7 council members is 71%. This sounds like representation is just about right to me.
3
posted on
08/24/2003 11:21:49 AM PDT
by
CurlyDave
To: bourbon
Gee, I wonder why the population is shrinking... Maybe it has something to do with the "No Whites Wanted" views of many of the politicians...
Mark
4
posted on
08/24/2003 11:30:35 AM PDT
by
MarkL
(Get something every day from the four basic food groups: canned, frozen, fast and takeout)
To: dixiechick2000; WKB; afuturegovernor; wardaddy
5
posted on
08/24/2003 11:35:49 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: CurlyDave; bourbon
I would resist the notion that one race ought to represent itself as a matter of fairness....with all due respect.
Bourbon.... Glad you are back....hope you had a blast.
6
posted on
08/24/2003 11:39:46 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: MarkL
The City of Jackson is presently just like Detroit was in the 1970s. Our mayor is channeling the recently deceased Coleman Young. I'm certain of it.
7
posted on
08/24/2003 11:40:13 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: wardaddy
CA was great, but it's definitely nice to be back. I have a mean headache right now courtesy of two and a half weeks of FR withdrawal. :-)
8
posted on
08/24/2003 11:45:54 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
Old Jackson--governed by white, racist crooks.
New Jackson--governed by black, racist crooks.
Correction;
Old Jackson--governed by COMPETENT white, racist crooks.
New Jackson--governed by INCOMPETENT black, racist crooks...
9
posted on
08/24/2003 11:48:35 AM PDT
by
Exeter
To: bourbon
You missed the Moore threads. It was a freeforall and I wanted your law input....even if you disagreed with my view...which had little to do with law admittedly.
We had a lot of so called law experts spouting all this overlapping amendment crap that irritated me.
10
posted on
08/24/2003 11:49:59 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: wardaddy
yeah, I really wished that I had followed that story more closely and that I had been able to participate in those threads.
What exactly did these folks mean about "overlapping amendments." I have never heard that phrase before.
Oh, and just out of curiosity...what was your take on Judge Moore's actions?
11
posted on
08/24/2003 11:57:14 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
What do you think Sherlock?
12
posted on
08/24/2003 11:58:46 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: wardaddy
I strongly support Judge Moore's interpretation of the Constitution, but I do have some doubts about the moral/strategic wisdom of his defiance of the federal court order.
Sadly, the state of Establishment Clause law is so screwed up that placing the 10 Commandments in the AL Sup. Ct. is almost certainly "unconstitutional." Even though I don't believe that this ought to be considered unconstitutional, the relevant case law suggests a different result.
13
posted on
08/24/2003 12:10:04 PM PDT
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
I agree.
But whoever started the precedent "wall of separation" over "congress shall make no law...." screwed the pooch and how to turn that back is beyond my limited knowledge.
I know Moore is an activist...no doubt about it. He is actually a very accomplished and resolute and smart fellow...folks should read his personal history. Whoever took the role he is leading would be marked as an opportunist or activist. I'm happy to see my side on the offensive even if we have lost a battle for now.
I think what bothers many on my side is the plethora of religious icons that dot hundreds of our public buildings including SCOTUS and Congress and many like me feel that the enemy wishes to erase God from the public forum entirely.
All one need do is look at the usual suspects in the enemy camp (and here on FR btw)
ACLU
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Morris Dees
That says it all for me....it's the same gang cheering the sodomy rulings last month.
Glad to see you are sympathetic.
Btw...you know I am hardly pious. I slpet in while my wife took the babies to a PCA service today. Shame on me. I simply like my culture which is the one in my view we were founded on largely (95% at least) and am tired of seeing it attacked. They will go for coins etc next. It's an ongoing battle from school prayer to the pledge to Christmas and Hannahka dispays etc.
I also see a parallel between our cultural demise and this..although it may be more complimentray than causative.
I have to go round up everyone to go to Cool Springs now and will be back later...gotta go spend some $$$...what fun...$$$$ for things we really don't have to have.
We'd all like to hear all about your trip!
14
posted on
08/24/2003 12:23:49 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: bourbon; wardaddy; WKB
Eric Stringfellow went to Provine with my sister, if he's who I think he is. He was Mr. Provine in 1978. He's a good man, and obviously has a lot of courage of his convictions.
15
posted on
08/24/2003 1:01:36 PM PDT
by
Yudan
(Leave it to a Dimwitcrap to bring a knife to a gunfight.)
To: bourbon; wardaddy; dixiechick2000; Yudan
Kenneth Stokes = racist SOB. simple as that
As hard as this is for me to say
"Kenny Stokes is worse than Bennie Thompson"
And that is D*** bad.
16
posted on
08/24/2003 1:14:33 PM PDT
by
WKB
(3!~ ( You can hear it anywhere but only here can you tell the world what you think about it))
To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
Black conservative pingIf you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
17
posted on
08/24/2003 1:16:17 PM PDT
by
mhking
To: bourbon
Didn't we just celebrate MLK?
18
posted on
08/24/2003 1:20:30 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(i'm half and half... me mum is a muggle and me dad is a witch)
To: bourbon
They fought so hard for civil rights and integration only to trample the rights of others and become segregationists. Shameful.
19
posted on
08/24/2003 1:22:00 PM PDT
by
arasina
(Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall in Martha's Vineyard this week?)
To: bourbon
What an utter fool. And how sad that ANY group of people ELECT something like that as their leader. Pathetic.
MM
To: arasina; Yudan
This kind of beahvior is old news to those of us from the Cotton States.
to quote old vernacular:
"da bottom rung done moved up top, and be time to get paid"
That's just how it is. Jackson is lost for many genrations to come...gone...dust....East St Louis or Gary....just further South.
21
posted on
08/24/2003 3:57:15 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: bourbon
RACIST, yes.
Pointless to ask I suppose but Where is the outrage in the media?"
22
posted on
08/24/2003 5:20:41 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is slavery)
To: bourbon
The everlasting black and white issue. How sad! Maybe we should all wear paper bags over our heads, LOL!
23
posted on
08/24/2003 6:27:40 PM PDT
by
potlatch
(If you want breakfast in bed - - - sleep in the kitchen!)
To: Yudan
Stringfellow is a good guy, but, based on a reading of most of his columns, I would generally place him in the liberal camp. It's very good to see that he is willing to criticize black racist thugs like Stokes.
Here's an interesting corollary... Kenneth Stokes' father was a painter, and many years ago my grandfather frequently employed him to paint some of the various properties he owned/managed. Kenneth, who was a child at the time, used to accompany his dad to work. My mother, who was a teenager then, remembers little Kenneth well. She said he was a nice child, and she is at a loss to explain how he could turn into such a racist gasbag politico. I suppose evil works in mysterious ways?
24
posted on
08/25/2003 9:08:49 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: WKB
I think Stokes and Bennie T. are big buddies. I believe they frequently campaign together in Jackson.
25
posted on
08/25/2003 9:12:24 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
The Jackson City Council approved new ward lines Tuesday amid objections from Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes, who said he wants fewer white elected officials Let me guess .. he's a democrat???
26
posted on
08/25/2003 9:15:28 AM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: wardaddy
Scalia said in Lawrence v. Texas that the USSCT has chosen sides in the larger cultural battle for gay rights. It should be equally clear that the court has chosen sides in the cultural battle over this country's religious heritage and character.
With regards to the Establishment Clause, the Court has freed itself of any restraints imposed by the language or history of that clause. By changing the tests for establishment from ones that included some calculus of actual coercion of a citizen's conscience to tests which found a violation wherever there was "excessive entanglement" between state and church or whereever the government may have "endorsed" a religion however casually, the Court has turned the Establishment Clause in to a tool for the complete secularization of society. I believe their greater aim is to discredit religion as a typically human aspiration or ideal.
27
posted on
08/25/2003 9:25:57 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: Mo1
DING, DING, DING!!!!
You win a prize! He is most certainly a Democrat.
28
posted on
08/25/2003 9:26:50 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: wardaddy
How many people were going after Moore on FR? Were there lots of people expressing sympathies with Morris Dees et al?
Oh, and once again, what is this "overlapping amendments" stuff you mentioned in an earlier post. I'm deadly curious to know exactly the source and nature of this foolishness. :-)
29
posted on
08/25/2003 9:30:35 AM PDT
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
Indeed....this alleged Conservative court only has 3 dependable conservatives and one is very old sadly.
30
posted on
08/25/2003 9:32:45 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: bourbon
I was pretty much in the thick of it. I'd say maybe 25% were against Moore. Of course they disavowed any connection to the unholy alliance partners they were allied with.
There seemed to be an undertone of resentment against Protestant Right Wing Christians(especially of the Southern variety) from the usual suspects including some atheists, libertarians, lapsed Catholics etc.
It should be noted though that quite a few Catholic and Jewish freepers supported Moore.
The usual slurs that we are Talibanesque and that the founders were all Diests ( blatant lie) etc.
They harped on the fact that Moore is an opportunist which he is as would anyone who has taken up the guantlet he has. They also despised Reverend Kennedy ..a quite conservative pastor from Florida with Coral Ridge Ministries and who is backing Moore to a degree because Kennedy has a his sermons televised on Sundays.... I like Kennedy and Stanley and Graham the elder and younger...all of whom use television. That does not make them Benny Hinn by default.
There were arguments that the 10th and 14th amendments trump the specific language of the 1st...that sort of thing.
31
posted on
08/25/2003 9:41:20 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: bourbon
That's to really be expected. I can tolerate PRINCIPLED liberals.
It's the kind that embrace EVERY whining special interest group that are intolerable. The political whores - they'll sleep with anyone to get their face on television or their name in print.
32
posted on
08/25/2003 10:19:39 AM PDT
by
Yudan
(Leave it to a Dimwitcrap to bring a knife to a gunfight.)
To: wardaddy
The usual slurs that we are Talibanesque and that the founders were all Diests ( blatant lie) etc.
In law school, my famously histrionic and deeply liberal con. law prof. asked me in class if I thought that there was any danger that this country would "turn into the Taliban" (his words) if we didn't respect the "strict" separation of Church and State.
I told him that I didn't think that there was the least danger of this ever happening, mainly because the U.S. has always been a religiously pluralisitc and sectarian country and that the prospect of theocracy had not presented a proximate danger to Western Civilization since the Middle Ages. I also said that I thought there was a much greater danger of this country turning into a rigorously atheistic nanny-state in which people of faith were persecuted and lived in fear for their very lives. Additionally, I pointed out that precisely such a fate had recently befallen countries to which we bear much more of a sociological/cultural/historical similarity than Afghanistan.
This Taliban analogy is simply ridiculous and usually the product of a damaged or diseased mind. I prefer to deal with realistic fears when aligning my political preferences.
33
posted on
08/25/2003 3:56:09 PM PDT
by
bourbon
To: Yudan
I can tolerate PRINCIPLED liberals.
I completely agree. I just wanted to let you know where Stringfellow is normally coming from. I know you don't have the (cough...ahem) "pleasure" of reading the Clarion-Ledger on a regular basis. :-)
34
posted on
08/25/2003 3:59:00 PM PDT
by
bourbon
To: wardaddy
Just another thought. There has to be a tremendous amount of overlap between the anti-Christian bigots and anti-South bigots on FR. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that these two groups share a lot of members.
35
posted on
08/25/2003 4:02:27 PM PDT
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
You have largely hit the proverbial nail on the head.
It is the usual suspects with the "toothless, sister marrying, redneck, bigot, racist, trailer park living, must be a neo-Reb" comments of their usual vitriol.
...and then you have the libertarians and objectivists....
36
posted on
08/25/2003 4:33:13 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson