The Value of Free Speech

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Absolutely irrefutable evidence has been uncovered that the IRS targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status based solely on ideology.

Do you acknowledge that, or are you going to continue being willfully ignorant?

You have changed the subject. The subject we were discussing was your claim that the government was punishing people who made negative comments about the Obama administration on the website that Obama's campaign set up to address false accusations. It was Stockman's letter to Issa asking for an investigation based on Erik Erikson's claim. That went nowhere. As it was nothing.

The fake IRS scandal is still fake. The politically motivated organizations that were flagged based on their NAME were trying to gain tax exempt status. Since organizations with liberal or progressive NAMES were also flagged, it is an indication of a weird policy of flagging more than unfair targeting due to ideology.

Issa has made a fool of himself with the issue. None of those organizations were ever stopped from saying what they wanted to say. And, in fact, none were even denied the tax exemption that they were seeking. That is going nowhere. As it is nothing.

Now...as I have addressed the new topic that you decided to bring up...where would you like to go next?

LOL, Templar....LOL!

How, exactly, is the government ‘punishing’ anyone?

Exposing those who contrive or spread lies about the Administration as liars isn’t ‘punishment.’

 

[TemplarKormac]

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Absolutely irrefutable evidence has been uncovered that the IRS targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status based solely on ideology.

Do you acknowledge that, or are you going to continue being willfully ignorant?

You have changed the subject. The subject we were discussing was your claim that the government was punishing people who made negative comments about the Obama administration on the website that Obama's campaign set up to address false accusations. It was Stockman's letter to Issa asking for an investigation based on Erik Erikson's claim. That went nowhere. As it was nothing.

The fake IRS scandal is still fake. The politically motivated organizations that were flagged based on their NAME were trying to gain tax exempt status. Since organizations with liberal or progressive NAMES were also flagged, it is an indication of a weird policy of flagging more than unfair targeting due to ideology.

Issa has made a fool of himself with the issue. None of those organizations were ever stopped from saying what they wanted to say. And, in fact, none were even denied the tax exemption that they were seeking. That is going nowhere. As it is nothing.

Now...as I have addressed the new topic that you decided to bring up...where would you like to go next?

LOL, Templar....LOL!

^^^Still thinks he's debating me. I must have rattled his cage a bit too much last night.

 

[daveman]

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Absolutely irrefutable evidence has been uncovered that the IRS targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status based solely on ideology.

Do you acknowledge that, or are you going to continue being willfully ignorant?

You have changed the subject. The subject we were discussing was your claim that the government was punishing people who made negative comments about the Obama administration on the website that Obama's campaign set up to address false accusations. It was Stockman's letter to Issa asking for an investigation based on Erik Erikson's claim. That went nowhere. As it was nothing.

I addressed that in post #354. Do keep up.

The fake IRS scandal is still fake.

Yes, so Obama ordered his toadies and bootlickers to parrot. Good job!

The politically motivated organizations that were flagged based on their NAME were trying to gain tax exempt status. Since organizations with liberal or progressive NAMES were also flagged, it is an indication of a weird policy of flagging more than unfair targeting due to ideology.

Issa has made a fool of himself with the issue. None of those organizations were ever stopped from saying what they wanted to say. And, in fact, none were even denied the tax exemption that they were seeking. That is going nowhere. As it is nothing.

Now...as I have addressed the new topic that you decided to bring up...where would you like to go next?

How about the false claims you just made?

Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups | WashingtonExaminer.com

In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.

The Wednesday letter to the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee punched a huge hole in Democratic claims that progressive groups were targeted as much as the Tea Party groups from May 2010-May 2012, the height of the Tea Party movement.

The letter from the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed that there just weren't many progressive groups who even sought special tax exempt status. A total of 20 sought it, and six were probed. All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.

"At this point, the evidence shows us that conservative groups were not only flagged, but targeted and abused by the IRS," said Sarah Swinehart spokeswoman for the Ways and Means Committee.

--

The operative paragraph from the IG letter:

"Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a 'Progressives' entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."​

[Update: September 20] Censored! IRS Scandal Being Buried by Big Three Networks | NewsBusters

Your talking points are not based on fact.

How do you feel, being revealed as a bootlicker? What special favors do you hope to gain from the Obama Administration? You do know, don't you, that they don't give a damn about you? You're just another Useful Idiot.

 

[daveman]

Absolutely irrefutable evidence has been uncovered that the IRS targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status based solely on ideology.

Do you acknowledge that, or are you going to continue being willfully ignorant?

You have changed the subject. The subject we were discussing was your claim that the government was punishing people who made negative comments about the Obama administration on the website that Obama's campaign set up to address false accusations. It was Stockman's letter to Issa asking for an investigation based on Erik Erikson's claim. That went nowhere. As it was nothing.

The fake IRS scandal is still fake. The politically motivated organizations that were flagged based on their NAME were trying to gain tax exempt status. Since organizations with liberal or progressive NAMES were also flagged, it is an indication of a weird policy of flagging more than unfair targeting due to ideology.

Issa has made a fool of himself with the issue. None of those organizations were ever stopped from saying what they wanted to say. And, in fact, none were even denied the tax exemption that they were seeking. That is going nowhere. As it is nothing.

Now...as I have addressed the new topic that you decided to bring up...where would you like to go next?

LOL, Templar....LOL!

How, exactly, is the government ‘punishing’ anyone?

Exposing those who contrive or spread lies about the Administration as liars isn’t ‘punishment.’

How many people have YOU denounced, Jonesy?

What a good little Brownshirt-wannabe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Absolutely irrefutable evidence has been uncovered that the IRS targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status based solely on ideology.

Do you acknowledge that, or are you going to continue being willfully ignorant?

You have changed the subject. The subject we were discussing was your claim that the government was punishing people who made negative comments about the Obama administration on the website that Obama's campaign set up to address false accusations. It was Stockman's letter to Issa asking for an investigation based on Erik Erikson's claim. That went nowhere. As it was nothing.

The fake IRS scandal is still fake. The politically motivated organizations that were flagged based on their NAME were trying to gain tax exempt status. Since organizations with liberal or progressive NAMES were also flagged, it is an indication of a weird policy of flagging more than unfair targeting due to ideology.

Issa has made a fool of himself with the issue. None of those organizations were ever stopped from saying what they wanted to say. And, in fact, none were even denied the tax exemption that they were seeking. That is going nowhere. As it is nothing.

Now...as I have addressed the new topic that you decided to bring up...where would you like to go next?

LOL, Templar....LOL!

How, exactly, is the government ‘punishing’ anyone?

Exposing those who contrive or spread lies about the Administration as liars isn’t ‘punishment.’

You were punished a while ago in this thread for lying, Clayton. You insisted that Lois Lerner was not involved in a IRS coverup of targeting Tea Party orgs. I tarred and feathered you on the spot. All you can do is whine about how I am exposing this "Administration" for what it really is. Whatchoo gonna do, Clayton, sick the "Truth Police" on me?

 

[thereisnospoon]

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Absolutely irrefutable evidence has been uncovered that the IRS targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status based solely on ideology.

Do you acknowledge that, or are you going to continue being willfully ignorant?

You have changed the subject. The subject we were discussing was your claim that the government was punishing people who made negative comments about the Obama administration on the website that Obama's campaign set up to address false accusations. It was Stockman's letter to Issa asking for an investigation based on Erik Erikson's claim. That went nowhere. As it was nothing.

The fake IRS scandal is still fake. The politically motivated organizations that were flagged based on their NAME were trying to gain tax exempt status. Since organizations with liberal or progressive NAMES were also flagged, it is an indication of a weird policy of flagging more than unfair targeting due to ideology.

Issa has made a fool of himself with the issue. None of those organizations were ever stopped from saying what they wanted to say. And, in fact, none were even denied the tax exemption that they were seeking. That is going nowhere. As it is nothing.

Now...as I have addressed the new topic that you decided to bring up...where would you like to go next?

LOL, Templar....LOL!

NIce try. The IRS apologized for their actions.
Why would the IRS issue an apology for something not real?

 

[PrometheusBound]

You are about as gullible as a newborn child if you dont think he could find some right wingers to do the same thing if he switched up his proposition to limit the free speech of liberals. Are you really that stupid or are you just playing possum?

Um, given that I don't take you seriously, Asclepias, yes I would be playing possum. Only newborn children like you would be gullible enough to be led around by the hand with liberal propaganda. You just can't stick to the original argument, can you?

Youre the one that responded to me saying he could find some rw's to say the same thing. Why didnt you stick to the point instead of addressing my observation?

If you act like animals, we can call you animals, no matter how much it makes you go crying to your Liberal nannies.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Seems to be a matter to be settled by the laws of the state where it occureed. Or do you have a problem with that?

Any American worth calling themselves patriotic and a 100% supporter of the Constitutional principles that set us apart from every other nation on the planet would have a HUGE problem with that. The reason is simple. Such suits should never happen in the first place.
What the alleged injured parties are saying is "you will do business with me on my terms and if you don't I will use the civil courts to make you pay or put you out of business"..
I cannot think of a more un-American perception.
Such a principle is outrageous. So much so that no one with a scintilla of common sense and decency would be in support of them

What part of the Constitution encourages hate speech and actions? It seems like the principles are up for debate. The preamble highlights some basic concepts

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where does any of that say you get to discriminate against anyone because you dont personally agree with their sex life?

That's what it appeared to mean to Founding Fodder John Adams, who shut down any newspaper that disagreed with his policies.

 

[Asclepias]

Um, given that I don't take you seriously, Asclepias, yes I would be playing possum. Only newborn children like you would be gullible enough to be led around by the hand with liberal propaganda. You just can't stick to the original argument, can you?

Youre the one that responded to me saying he could find some rw's to say the same thing. Why didnt you stick to the point instead of addressing my observation?

If you act like animals, we can call you animals, no matter how much it makes you go crying to your Liberal nannies.

Are you slow? What are you talking about?

 

[Foxfyre]

Any American worth calling themselves patriotic and a 100% supporter of the Constitutional principles that set us apart from every other nation on the planet would have a HUGE problem with that. The reason is simple. Such suits should never happen in the first place.
What the alleged injured parties are saying is "you will do business with me on my terms and if you don't I will use the civil courts to make you pay or put you out of business"..
I cannot think of a more un-American perception.
Such a principle is outrageous. So much so that no one with a scintilla of common sense and decency would be in support of them

What part of the Constitution encourages hate speech and actions? It seems like the principles are up for debate. The preamble highlights some basic concepts

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where does any of that say you get to discriminate against anyone because you dont personally agree with their sex life?

That's what it appeared to mean to Founding Fodder John Adams, who shut down any newspaper that disagreed with his policies.

Okay, before this thread is merged with PoliticalChic's history revisionism thread, I'll have to ask you for a link for that one. And no, I won't accept a link from CommonDreams or any other history revisionists.

It is true that John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, but he neither suggested them, promoted them, or personally advocated them. And while it is true that some people associated with newspapers were arrested under the provision of those Acts, it is also true that Adams himself deplored that, he pardoned the leaders of Fries Rebellion protesting HIM and arrested under provisions of the acts, and he approved Jefferson's pardon of all others arrested under the acts and approved allowing the acts to die a natural death.

It was the lowest point, however, of a presidency that history has otherwise been generally kind to when he stuck to his principles and went against the tide during a very complicated and difficult period. He certainly did not shut down newspapers who opposed him.

The Alien and Sedition acts however did turn out to be a chilling attack on free speech just as the McCarthy era was a chilling attack on free speech and a few other blips in the historical record. In each case, the goal was well intentioned but had serious unintended negative consequences. In each case, however, cooler heads and more Constitutionally minded people managed to halt the destructive policies and restore the fundamental concepts of free speech as recognized in the Constitution.

Will that happen again as free speech is systematically stomped into the ground the wake of oppressive political correctness?

 

[PrometheusBound]

Leftists are taking advantage of the Right Wing fallacy that the private sector can violate our natural rights. Analyzing this pragmatically, the results are the same as if the government ordered the firing of those who got dismissed or demoted for saying something offensive to privileged groups. Even within the government, Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised Strom Thurmond's original segregationism.

The PC predators are allowed to excuse that because it was a policy within the private rights of the Republican Party. Yet if the Hate Whitey crowd hadn't been intimidating people for decades, the Republicans would not have felt obligated to demote their leader. The point is that if the people don't naturally protect freedom of speech outside the government's jurisdiction, then they will eventually fail to protect themselves and others from government censorship. We do not have a free speech attitude in America.

If I protested instead against Lott's 6th grade grammar in his apology, Netwits would call me a "Grammar Nazi" because they can't defend the fraud in education he inadvertently exposed. With such a SYI attitude, if these people ever got government power, as they did in the Right Wing PC of the McCarthy era and in the Left Wing censorship ever since they would enable government witch hunts.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Youre the one that responded to me saying he could find some rw's to say the same thing. Why didnt you stick to the point instead of addressing my observation?

If you act like animals, we can call you animals, no matter how much it makes you go crying to your Liberal nannies.

Are you slow? What are you talking about?

Every time you get NAILED, you play its anagram, DENIAL.

 

[Asclepias]

If you act like animals, we can call you animals, no matter how much it makes you go crying to your Liberal nannies.

Are you slow? What are you talking about?

Every time you get NAILED, you play its anagram, DENIAL.

I dont know what you are smoking but I hope its legal. I repeat what are you talking about?

 

[Foxfyre]

Leftists are taking advantage of the Right Wing fallacy that the private sector can violate our natural rights. Analyzing this pragmatically, the results are the same as if the government ordered the firing of those who got dismissed or demoted for saying something offensive to privileged groups. Even within the government, Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised Strom Thurmond's original segregationism.

The PC predators are allowed to excuse that because it was a policy within the private rights of the Republican Party. Yet if the Hate Whitey crowd hadn't been intimidating people for decades, the Republicans would not have felt obligated to demote their leader. The point is that if the people don't naturally protect freedom of speech outside the government's jurisdiction, then they will eventually fail to protect themselves and others from government censorship. We do not have a free speech attitude in America.

If I protested instead against Lott's 6th grade grammar in his apology, Netwits would call me a "Grammar Nazi" because they can't defend the fraud in education he inadvertently exposed. With such a SYI attitude, if these people ever got government power, as they did in the Right Wing PC of the McCarthy era and in the Left Wing censorship ever since they would enable government witch hunts.

No. Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised a colleague on his 100th birthday and his enemies successfully portrayed that to mean that Lott was praising Thurmond's segregationalism. Anybody with a brain knows Lott was smarter than that, anybody with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged that Lott wasn't a segregationalist, and would have given him strong benefit of the doubt that he wasn't even thinking segregationalism when he made the extemporaneous comment. A Democrat would have been immediately shrugged off and it would have been accepted that he wasn't thinking anything bad. But Lott was a target and they got him.

Which is one more example of the visciousness and dishonesty involved in political correctness and why all freedom loving people should condemn it and deplore it when it is used as a weapon to destroy people.

 

[Asclepias]

Leftists are taking advantage of the Right Wing fallacy that the private sector can violate our natural rights. Analyzing this pragmatically, the results are the same as if the government ordered the firing of those who got dismissed or demoted for saying something offensive to privileged groups. Even within the government, Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised Strom Thurmond's original segregationism.

The PC predators are allowed to excuse that because it was a policy within the private rights of the Republican Party. Yet if the Hate Whitey crowd hadn't been intimidating people for decades, the Republicans would not have felt obligated to demote their leader. The point is that if the people don't naturally protect freedom of speech outside the government's jurisdiction, then they will eventually fail to protect themselves and others from government censorship. We do not have a free speech attitude in America.

If I protested instead against Lott's 6th grade grammar in his apology, Netwits would call me a "Grammar Nazi" because they can't defend the fraud in education he inadvertently exposed. With such a SYI attitude, if these people ever got government power, as they did in the Right Wing PC of the McCarthy era and in the Left Wing censorship ever since they would enable government witch hunts.

No. Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised a colleague on his 100th birthday and his enemies successfully portrayed that to mean that Lott was praising Thurmond's segregationalism. Anybody with a brain knows Lott was smarter than that, anybody with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged that Lott wasn't a segregationalist, and would have given him strong benefit of the doubt that he wasn't even thinking segregationalism when he made the extemporaneous comment. A Democrat would have been immediately shrugged off and it would have been accepted that he wasn't thinking anything bad. But Lott was a target and they got him.

Which is one more example of the visciousness and dishonesty involved in political correctness and why all freedom loving people should condemn it and deplore it when it is used as a weapon to destroy people.

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

 

[Foxfyre]

Leftists are taking advantage of the Right Wing fallacy that the private sector can violate our natural rights. Analyzing this pragmatically, the results are the same as if the government ordered the firing of those who got dismissed or demoted for saying something offensive to privileged groups. Even within the government, Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised Strom Thurmond's original segregationism.

The PC predators are allowed to excuse that because it was a policy within the private rights of the Republican Party. Yet if the Hate Whitey crowd hadn't been intimidating people for decades, the Republicans would not have felt obligated to demote their leader. The point is that if the people don't naturally protect freedom of speech outside the government's jurisdiction, then they will eventually fail to protect themselves and others from government censorship. We do not have a free speech attitude in America.

If I protested instead against Lott's 6th grade grammar in his apology, Netwits would call me a "Grammar Nazi" because they can't defend the fraud in education he inadvertently exposed. With such a SYI attitude, if these people ever got government power, as they did in the Right Wing PC of the McCarthy era and in the Left Wing censorship ever since they would enable government witch hunts.

No. Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised a colleague on his 100th birthday and his enemies successfully portrayed that to mean that Lott was praising Thurmond's segregationalism. Anybody with a brain knows Lott was smarter than that, anybody with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged that Lott wasn't a segregationalist, and would have given him strong benefit of the doubt that he wasn't even thinking segregationalism when he made the extemporaneous comment. A Democrat would have been immediately shrugged off and it would have been accepted that he wasn't thinking anything bad. But Lott was a target and they got him.

Which is one more example of the visciousness and dishonesty involved in political correctness and why all freedom loving people should condemn it and deplore it when it is used as a weapon to destroy people.

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

If he had been thinking segregationalism in any capacity, of course he would. But it never crossed his mind. It was an impulsive, extemporaneous remark praising the Senate's most elder statesman and I am 100% certain it was intended to be nothing else.

Strom Thurmond did his mea culpa for his own missteps over more than 70 years of public service, the last 48 years of his life in the U.S. Senate. In the last decades of his career, he had an exemplary record both with minorities and women. He died at Age 100, some months after Lott gave hm that tribute that fateful day. Joe Biden, Thurmond's long time friend and colleague, gave the eulogy at Thurmond's funeral.

Richard Byrd, former high official with the KKK, and just as rough a record as Lott on civil rights legislation during the 50's and 60's, was simply shrugged off when he went rambling on about knowing 'white *******' and other politically incorrect speech. But he wasn't a target for destruction by the political correctness brigade.

Political correctness is vile, viscious, and will eventually destroy the First Amendment if freedom loving people don't start pushing back.

 

[Asclepias]

No. Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised a colleague on his 100th birthday and his enemies successfully portrayed that to mean that Lott was praising Thurmond's segregationalism. Anybody with a brain knows Lott was smarter than that, anybody with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged that Lott wasn't a segregationalist, and would have given him strong benefit of the doubt that he wasn't even thinking segregationalism when he made the extemporaneous comment. A Democrat would have been immediately shrugged off and it would have been accepted that he wasn't thinking anything bad. But Lott was a target and they got him.

Which is one more example of the visciousness and dishonesty involved in political correctness and why all freedom loving people should condemn it and deplore it when it is used as a weapon to destroy people.

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

If he had been thinking segregationalism in any capacity, of course he would. But it never crossed his mind. It was an impulsive, extemporaneous remark praising the Senate's most elder statesman and I am 100% certain it was intended to be nothing else.

Strom Thurmond did his mea culpa for his own missteps over more than 70 years of public service, the last 48 years of his life in the U.S. Senate. In the last decades of his career, he had an exemplary record both with minorities and women. He died at Age 100, some months after Lott gave hm that tribute that fateful day. Joe Biden, Thurmond's long time friend and colleague, gave the eulogy at Thurmond's funeral.

Richard Byrd, former high official with the KKK, and just as rough a record as Lott on civil rights legislation during the 50's and 60's, was simply shrugged off when he went rambling on about knowing 'white *******' and other politically incorrect speech. But he wasn't a target for destruction by the political correctness brigade.

Political correctness is vile, viscious, and will eventually destroy the First Amendment if freedom loving people don't start pushing back.

What makes you think it never crossed his mind? Lott never mentioned Stroms change of heart. He however, specifically mentioned Stroms campaign for POTUS in 1948 which was a segregationist platform. Lott was also affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens a white segregationist organization in the 1990's. This group was put together by the remnants of the John Birch Society, White Citizens Council, and the organizers of the presidential attempts of George Wallace from Alabama. I think in this case he was correctly pointed out by the PC police. The role of a politician is to show the appearance of being sensible and judicious. Supporting racism isnt appearing sensible. When politicians and businesses learn that they will be held accountable for offending people then this kind of stuff will stop.

 

[Foxfyre]

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

If he had been thinking segregationalism in any capacity, of course he would. But it never crossed his mind. It was an impulsive, extemporaneous remark praising the Senate's most elder statesman and I am 100% certain it was intended to be nothing else.

Strom Thurmond did his mea culpa for his own missteps over more than 70 years of public service, the last 48 years of his life in the U.S. Senate. In the last decades of his career, he had an exemplary record both with minorities and women. He died at Age 100, some months after Lott gave hm that tribute that fateful day. Joe Biden, Thurmond's long time friend and colleague, gave the eulogy at Thurmond's funeral.

Richard Byrd, former high official with the KKK, and just as rough a record as Lott on civil rights legislation during the 50's and 60's, was simply shrugged off when he went rambling on about knowing 'white *******' and other politically incorrect speech. But he wasn't a target for destruction by the political correctness brigade.

Political correctness is vile, viscious, and will eventually destroy the First Amendment if freedom loving people don't start pushing back.

What makes you think it never crossed his mind? Lott never mentioned Stroms change of heart. He however, specifically mentioned Stroms campaign for POTUS in 1948 which was a segregationist platform. Lott was also affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens a white segregationist organization in the 1990's. This group was put together by the remnants of the John Birch Society, White Citizens Council, and the organizers of the presidential attempts of George Wallace from Alabama. I think in this case he was correctly pointed out by the PC police. The role of a politician is to show the appearance of being sensible and judicious. Supporting racism isnt appearing sensible. When politicians and businesses learn that they will be held accountable for offending people then this kind of stuff will stop.

I am sure it didn't cross his mind or he would not have said it. Trent Lott was no fool. The poisonous attitudes of the PC police of course will judge him by what they WANT to believe rather than by what he actually said in the spirit it was said. You obviously support condemning and destroying people based on political correctness.

The problem is not a Trent Lott extemporaneously praising a 100-year-old colleague on his birthday. The problem is people like you who condone drawing unsupportable conclusions to destroy somebody because you don't like them or their opinions on something.

 

[YWN666]

If you are an American, this is one of the most valuable rights afforded to you a citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech. It has been throughout history tested and tried, but it stood the test of time. People say, "My government infringes on my right to freedom of speech!" well, I would count my blessings if I were you. China does not value that right, and will without hesitation take it from you. It is getting to that point here, with the NSA watching what you do on the internet and who you call on the phone. Our freedom of speech is now in danger, in China it's gone. A chilling reminder of our future if we allow it to happen.

BEIJING—A forceful campaign of intimidation against China's most influential Internet users has cast a chill over public debate in the country and called into question the long-term viability of its most vibrant social-media platform.

In an offensive that some critics have likened to the political purges of the Mao era, Beijing has recently detained or interrogated several high-profile social-media figures, issued warnings to others to watch what they say and expanded criminal laws to make it easier to prosecute people for their online activity—all part of what one top propaganda official described on Tuesday as "the purification of the online environment."

China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

It’s more a chilling reminder of your ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence and the shameful propensity by you and others on the right to engage in demagoguery.

Our freedom of speech is in no way ‘in danger,’ and to compare the United States with China concerning free expression rights is ignorant idiocy.

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

 

[Asclepias]

If he had been thinking segregationalism in any capacity, of course he would. But it never crossed his mind. It was an impulsive, extemporaneous remark praising the Senate's most elder statesman and I am 100% certain it was intended to be nothing else.

Strom Thurmond did his mea culpa for his own missteps over more than 70 years of public service, the last 48 years of his life in the U.S. Senate. In the last decades of his career, he had an exemplary record both with minorities and women. He died at Age 100, some months after Lott gave hm that tribute that fateful day. Joe Biden, Thurmond's long time friend and colleague, gave the eulogy at Thurmond's funeral.

Richard Byrd, former high official with the KKK, and just as rough a record as Lott on civil rights legislation during the 50's and 60's, was simply shrugged off when he went rambling on about knowing 'white *******' and other politically incorrect speech. But he wasn't a target for destruction by the political correctness brigade.

Political correctness is vile, viscious, and will eventually destroy the First Amendment if freedom loving people don't start pushing back.

What makes you think it never crossed his mind? Lott never mentioned Stroms change of heart. He however, specifically mentioned Stroms campaign for POTUS in 1948 which was a segregationist platform. Lott was also affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens a white segregationist organization in the 1990's. This group was put together by the remnants of the John Birch Society, White Citizens Council, and the organizers of the presidential attempts of George Wallace from Alabama. I think in this case he was correctly pointed out by the PC police. The role of a politician is to show the appearance of being sensible and judicious. Supporting racism isnt appearing sensible. When politicians and businesses learn that they will be held accountable for offending people then this kind of stuff will stop.

I am sure it didn't cross his mind or he would not have said it. Trent Lott was no fool. The poisonous attitudes of the PC police of course will judge him by what they WANT to believe rather than by what he actually said in the spirit it was said. You obviously support condemning and destroying people based on political correctness.

The problem is not a Trent Lott extemporaneously praising a 100-year-old colleague on his birthday. The problem is people like you who condone drawing unsupportable conclusions to destroy somebody because you don't like them or their opinions on something.

So how is my conclusion less supportable than yours? Why do you still believe that in spite of his shown support of segregation and racism he in this particular case was not even thinking about it when he specifically pointed out the Stroms presidential race? I think you give him too much credit. He was not as smart as you think he was or he is a racist. A politician should be politically correct. They should be destroyed professionally when their mouth reveals they are not fit to serve the public.