When a person is convicted of a murder, there is nothing prejudicial about about calling him a murderer; impirical evidence has been produced that led 12 fellow citizens to come to this conclusion.
But calling someone a bigot under the circumstances of this type of highly charged debate doesn't advance the name-caller, nor does it lend credence to his position; quite the opposite. The label only fits in the mind of the beholder aka the accuser. Kretek's mere labeling of A.A.C. a bigot does not make it so--and we would be less than clear thinkers if we accepted his label at face value; let him cite his reasons for coming to that conclusion; chapter and verse.
Because these emotionally charged words like racist and bigot have been coopted by the left, it becomes even more incumbent upon conservatives not to to throw them around lightly.
Regardless of the implications of words, let's go back to the original point. Is it productive to act hypocritically and suggest we are a free nation but not act like it? Is it productive to single out citizens who have committed no crime? Is it productive to weaken our Constitution when it's the strongest weapon we have against a takeover of our government?
I say no.