The Value of Free Speech

[Foxfyre]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

It isn't okay for a racist, bigot, misogynist, accordian player, Hari Krishna, gardener, astrologer, Democrat, or fanatical wingnut on a message board to intentionally attempt to destroy anybody's livelihood or reputation. Those who do deserve to be pushed back and/or punished whether they are Barack Obama or any recognized saint or somebody who calls himself Asclepias. However, it is every citizen's unalienable right to be as racist, bigoted, or misogynistic as he/she chooses to be, just so long as he/she violates nobody else's unalienable rights.

But I think even you can comprehend the difference beween holding an opinion, which is our unalienable right to do, and acting to intentionally punish or hurt somebody because we don't like the opinion they hold. If I choose not to do business with a racist or bigot, I am exercising my First Amendment Rights. If I try to force or convince YOU to not do business with somebody, and/or threaten you with retribution if you do, that is crossing over the line into the territory of violation of another's unalienable rights.

 

[Asclepias]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

It isn't okay for a racist, bigot, misogynist, accordian player, Hari Krishna, gardener, astrologer, Democrat, or fanatical wingnut on a message board to intentionally attempt to destroy anybody's livelihood or reputation. Those who do deserve to be pushed back and/or punished whether they are Barack Obama or any recognized saint or somebody who calls himself Asclepias who doesn't seem to understand the concept at all.

But I think even you can comprehend the difference beween holding an opinion, which is our unalienable right to do, and acting to punish or hurt somebody because we don't like the opinion they hold.

Herein we have a difference of opinion. I don't have an issue with say someone like Tank that is a racist having an opinion. He doesnt matter nor does he influence any decision making. If he was a politician or business person that served the public in any capacity I would be the first in line to shut him down. I dont get what is so hard to comprehend. You shouldn't be espousing hate if you are an elected official or a person that serves the public. You will get hurt financially or have your reputation ruined justly since you wish to do the same to others.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Assuming your intelligence, Asclepias, would be a herculean task.

Interestingly enough... Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat, so was Trent Lott. What Democrats continue to ignore is their critical role in endearing racial animosity in this country. Being the PC police on race is something akin for them trying to make up for the guilt they have as being the party who spawned the Ku Klux Klan. Essentially saying you don't have the right to speak your mind unless you wish to be seen as a racist.

Trent Lott did not become a Republican until 1972 and Strom Thrumond switched immediately after the Civil Rights act. One was essentially trying to preserve the only way of life he knew, and the other was demoted and accosted for wishing him a happy birthday. By no means am I suggesting that I support their ideals, but this is a critical aspect of their First Amendment speech. Can a man not wish someone who may have supported segregationist ideals in the past a happy birthday? Is this not taking the political correctness a bit too far?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

Because you (kollektively) label anyone who holds views you don't like as racist/bigot/misogynist, whether or not they actually are.

The left has made those terms useless. All they mean now is "someone whose opinions I can't rationally argue against, so I will lash out emotionally with spurious charges".

I dont know what form of English you subscribe to but I still use those words in the traditional sense.

I use common sense in the traditional sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

Watergate was a fake scandal, until it wasn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.’

Yes it is, because that is not the governments fucking job. The fact that you actually support the government doing things like proves how little you understand both case law and the Constitution.

 

[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.

Assuming your intelligence, Asclepias, would be a herculean task.

Interestingly enough... Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat, so was Trent Lott. What Democrats continue to ignore is their critical role in endearing racial animosity in this country. Being the PC police on race is something akin for them trying to make up for the guilt they have as being the party who spawned the Ku Klux Klan. Essentially saying you don't have the right to speak your mind unless you wish to be seen as a racist.

Trent Lott did not become a Republican until 1972 and Strom Thrumond switched immediately after the Civil Rights act. One was essentially trying to preserve the only way of life he knew, and the other was demoted and accosted for wishing him a happy. By no means am I suggesting that I support their ideals, but this is a critical aspect of their First Amendment speech. Can a man not wish someone who may have supported segregationist ideals a happy birthday? Is this not taking the political correctness a bit too far?

Why you guys think saying that Dems used to be the racist party is something profound or enlightening is beyond me. The Democratic party used to be todays version of the Republican party but more open in their racism. Storm actually became a Dixiecrat which was the most racist portion of the Democratic party. All the racists moved to the Republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I guess I should cry because he wanted to preserve Jim Crow huh?

I have no problem with Lott wishing him happy birthday, however when he evoked Stroms racist run for POTUS that was an issue. He could have spoken as to how Strom evolved and changed his mind but instead chose the racist platform Strom embraced at the time to praise. I think he was rightly put down for it. As a politician responsible for decision making for all Americans there is no room for that type of opinion to be espoused.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



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.

I see you still can't read. If that is all we were worried about we would be demanding that the government stop you from criticizing us. Since that is actually what Obama wants, at least in relation to groups he cares about, you are, as usual, wrong.

Stop font abuse.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

It isn't okay for a racist, bigot, misogynist, accordian player, Hari Krishna, gardener, astrologer, Democrat, or fanatical wingnut on a message board to intentionally attempt to destroy anybody's livelihood or reputation. Those who do deserve to be pushed back and/or punished whether they are Barack Obama or any recognized saint or somebody who calls himself Asclepias who doesn't seem to understand the concept at all.

But I think even you can comprehend the difference between holding an opinion, which is our unalienable right to do, and acting to punish or hurt somebody because we don't like the opinion they hold.

Herein we have a difference of opinion. I don't have an issue with say someone like Tank that is a racist having an opinion. He doesn't matter nor does he influence any decision making. If he was a politician or business person that served the public in any capacity I would be the first in line to shut him down. I don't get what is so hard to comprehend. You shouldn't be espousing hate if you are an elected official or a person that serves the public. You will get hurt financially or have your reputation ruined justly since you wish to do the same to others.

What I see here is your inability to draw the line between mere opinion, and acting on such an opinion. There may be times where expressing an opinion comes in the form of a act, but sometimes all an opinion is, is just an opinion. If it doesn't harm you or others, what right do you have to deny someone of it? What gives you the right to harm them for it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

Destroying someone's career isn't violence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

.........and it does not exist in any form sanctioned by "the government". You are freaking out at the fact that consumers make noise and get companies to act when an employee says something disagreeable. Or...you are upset that a shopkeeper has his business decline because he demobstrates that he is a bigot. It is all free speech......even the loud voices who do the complaining.

Threats of violence and destruction of property are prosecutable offenses. Mob attacks? Have there been mob attacks that have gone unpunished?

There....did the fiftieth time sink in?

Until you condemn Obama for what he said about a video you cannot speak on the issue with any form of credibility, so shut the fuck up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

And there you have it folks. The declaration of the death of the First Amendment and free speech down the toilet. Spelled out in unmistakable terms by Asclepias, the USMB poster boy for kill the First Amendment now.

My declaration is not to kill the 1rst amendment. My declaration is to make people serving the public pay for ignorant racist remarks. They can say what they want but the better not cry about the consequences.

Another beauty by your boy Trent Lott

Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy.

When are you going to destroy the career of Jesse Jackson and Chris Mathews? How about Joe Biden?

Or is it only racist when the wrong side says it?

 

[Asclepias]

It isn't okay for a racist, bigot, misogynist, accordian player, Hari Krishna, gardener, astrologer, Democrat, or fanatical wingnut on a message board to intentionally attempt to destroy anybody's livelihood or reputation. Those who do deserve to be pushed back and/or punished whether they are Barack Obama or any recognized saint or somebody who calls himself Asclepias who doesn't seem to understand the concept at all.

But I think even you can comprehend the difference between holding an opinion, which is our unalienable right to do, and acting to punish or hurt somebody because we don't like the opinion they hold.

Herein we have a difference of opinion. I don't have an issue with say someone like Tank that is a racist having an opinion. He doesn't matter nor does he influence any decision making. If he was a politician or business person that served the public in any capacity I would be the first in line to shut him down. I don't get what is so hard to comprehend. You shouldn't be espousing hate if you are an elected official or a person that serves the public. You will get hurt financially or have your reputation ruined justly since you wish to do the same to others.

What I see here is your inability to draw the line between mere opinion, and acting on such an opinion. There may be times where expressing an opinion comes in the form of a act, but sometimes all an opinion is, is just an opinion. If it doesn't harm you or others, what right do you have to deny someone of it? What gives you the right to harm them for it?

What we actually have here is your inability to understand that I believe they can say what they want to. However, but dont cry when they get put on blast for their statements and suffer consequences to exercising their 1rst amendment rights. The fact they think like that is dangerous and I definitely dont want them profiting or making decisions that can affect me. i dont trust them. BTW thats a core component of being a politician or business person.

 

[Asclepias]

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

Destroying someone's career isn't violence?

No. Is preaching racism violence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

Why is it OK for a Democrat to do it but wrong when a Republican does it?

 

[Asclepias]

And there you have it folks. The declaration of the death of the First Amendment and free speech down the toilet. Spelled out in unmistakable terms by Asclepias, the USMB poster boy for kill the First Amendment now.

My declaration is not to kill the 1rst amendment. My declaration is to make people serving the public pay for ignorant racist remarks. They can say what they want but the better not cry about the consequences.

Another beauty by your boy Trent Lott

Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy.

When are you going to destroy the career of Jesse Jackson and Chris Mathews? How about Joe Biden?

Or is it only racist when the wrong side says it?

I wouldn't do anything personally. Its a group effort not just one person. Its the court of public opinion. Until they say or do something that enough people deem worthy of destroying them for they will continue to have a platform.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Assuming your intelligence, Asclepias, would be a herculean task.

Interestingly enough... Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat, so was Trent Lott. What Democrats continue to ignore is their critical role in endearing racial animosity in this country. Being the PC police on race is something akin for them trying to make up for the guilt they have as being the party who spawned the Ku Klux Klan. Essentially saying you don't have the right to speak your mind unless you wish to be seen as a racist.

Trent Lott did not become a Republican until 1972 and Strom Thrumond switched immediately after the Civil Rights act. One was essentially trying to preserve the only way of life he knew, and the other was demoted and accosted for wishing him a happy. By no means am I suggesting that I support their ideals, but this is a critical aspect of their First Amendment speech. Can a man not wish someone who may have supported segregationist ideals a happy birthday? Is this not taking the political correctness a bit too far?

Why you guys think saying that Dems used to be the racist party is something profound or enlightening is beyond me. The Democratic party used to be todays version of the Republican party but more open in their racism. Storm actually became a Dixiecrat which was the most racist portion of the Democratic party. All the racists moved to the Republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I guess I should cry because he wanted to preserve Jim Crow huh?

I have no problem with Lott wishing him happy birthday, however when he evoked Stroms racist run for POTUS that was an issue. He could have spoken as to how Strom evolved and changed his mind but instead chose the racist platform Strom embraced at the time to praise. I think he was rightly put down for it. As a politician responsible for decision making for all Americans there is no room for that type of opinion to be espoused.

There is no used to be about it.

 

[Asclepias]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

Why is it OK for a Democrat to do it but wrong when a Republican does it?

Its not. If a Dem is doing something wrong get your boys out there to get together and bring him down. You have every opportunity to exercise your 1rst amendment rights. If you notice I did not specify a party.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Assuming your intelligence, Asclepias, would be a herculean task.

Interestingly enough... Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat, so was Trent Lott. What Democrats continue to ignore is their critical role in endearing racial animosity in this country. Being the PC police on race is something akin for them trying to make up for the guilt they have as being the party who spawned the Ku Klux Klan. Essentially saying you don't have the right to speak your mind unless you wish to be seen as a racist.

Trent Lott did not become a Republican until 1972 and Strom Thrumond switched immediately after the Civil Rights act. One was essentially trying to preserve the only way of life he knew, and the other was demoted and accosted for wishing him a happy. By no means am I suggesting that I support their ideals, but this is a critical aspect of their First Amendment speech. Can a man not wish someone who may have supported segregationist ideals a happy birthday? Is this not taking the political correctness a bit too far?

Why you guys think saying that Dems used to be the racist party is something profound or enlightening is beyond me. The Democratic party used to be todays version of the Republican party but more open in their racism. Storm actually became a Dixiecrat which was the most racist portion of the Democratic party. All the racists moved to the Republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I guess I should cry because he wanted to preserve Jim Crow huh?

I have no problem with Lott wishing him happy birthday, however when he evoked Stroms racist run for POTUS that was an issue. He could have spoken as to how Strom evolved and changed his mind but instead chose the racist platform Strom embraced at the time to praise. I think he was rightly put down for it. As a politician responsible for decision making for all Americans there is no room for that type of opinion to be espoused.

Only Strom Thurmond defected to the Republican Party, no others defected. So you are playing right in to the lie that a large number of Republicans defected, and if you think that Nixon's Southern strategy worked, it didn't.

I don't care what "version" the Democratic party is, it's still the Democratic party. They are just as aware of their racist past as we are. They have not atoned for their past sins, instead they are now magnifying them by widening the racial divide between white and black. The election of a black president has even further widened this gap into a crevasse, since anyone who would dare criticize him are excoriated and berated as racists--- when all they are doing is criticizing him the same way (yes the exact same way) they would a white president. Essentially exercising their First Amendment right to address a grievance with their government. They try to induce some sort of guilt trip on whites, something they call "white guilt." But they need first to deal with the hypocrisy they hold in their hearts before lecturing anyone on race.

Democrats seem to want the minority to succeed over anyone else, to appease their racial guilt. Here, I want to show you a thread I wrote earlier this year here, it explains in precise detail the demons the Democrats have yet to exorcise:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/292277-real-racism-a-history-of-the-democratic-party.html

Democrats fail to see that there is no racism in our displeasure, we don't hate him for his skin color, we dislike him because of his political stances and actions as a sitting president. But we will not be silenced in our opposition, freedom of speech is a freedom we take seriously. We won't have the likes of the politically correct crowd trampling on them or coming after us for exercising it.

 

[Asclepias]

Assuming your intelligence, Asclepias, would be a herculean task.

Interestingly enough... Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat, so was Trent Lott. What Democrats continue to ignore is their critical role in endearing racial animosity in this country. Being the PC police on race is something akin for them trying to make up for the guilt they have as being the party who spawned the Ku Klux Klan. Essentially saying you don't have the right to speak your mind unless you wish to be seen as a racist.

Trent Lott did not become a Republican until 1972 and Strom Thrumond switched immediately after the Civil Rights act. One was essentially trying to preserve the only way of life he knew, and the other was demoted and accosted for wishing him a happy. By no means am I suggesting that I support their ideals, but this is a critical aspect of their First Amendment speech. Can a man not wish someone who may have supported segregationist ideals a happy birthday? Is this not taking the political correctness a bit too far?

Why you guys think saying that Dems used to be the racist party is something profound or enlightening is beyond me. The Democratic party used to be todays version of the Republican party but more open in their racism. Storm actually became a Dixiecrat which was the most racist portion of the Democratic party. All the racists moved to the Republican party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I guess I should cry because he wanted to preserve Jim Crow huh?

I have no problem with Lott wishing him happy birthday, however when he evoked Stroms racist run for POTUS that was an issue. He could have spoken as to how Strom evolved and changed his mind but instead chose the racist platform Strom embraced at the time to praise. I think he was rightly put down for it. As a politician responsible for decision making for all Americans there is no room for that type of opinion to be espoused.

There is no used to be about it.

Do you care to address Lotts poor choice of comments while wishing Strom happy birthday? I sort of figured you would avoid it so never mind.