"It is one thing to express support for James Madison and how he helped move this Republic forward.
It's another thing to explicitly advocate the resumption of chattel slavery because "it would have prevented so many problems wev'e experienced since then.""
How very liberal of you to put words in Senator Lott's mouth! Your analogy is a complete and total misfire, and I think you know it.
Did Senator Lott say that "resumption of segregation would have prevented so many of the problems we've experienced since then"?
No, he did not.
Case closed. His expressed opinion about Senator Thurmond was no more racist than my expression of admiration about the genius of one of our founders.
But the day is coming when such expressions will be condemned just as surely as Senator Lott's remarks. It's coming, and you're hurrying that day along by going along with this Politically Correct charade.
How very liberal of you to put words in Senator Lott's mouth! Your analogy is a complete and total misfire, and I think you know it. Did Senator Lott say that "resumption of segregation would have prevented so many of the problems we've experienced since then"?
No, he did not.
Did I say he did, or did you strategically move the quotation marks around to distort what I said? (Hint: the correct answer is the latter one.)
Case closed.
Yup. Case closed. You have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, therefore, I claim the win.
His expressed opinion about Senator Thurmond was no more racist than my expression of admiration about the genius of one of our founders.
The only significant difference between the Democrat and Dixiecrat platforms was the issue of segregation. That is the platform Thurmond was running on in 1948. Either Lott is actually in agreement with that platform, or he's too much of a blithering idiot to be trusted with anything important (the latter is my opinion).