Replies

I belong to an online pro-life club. We have among our members people who were formerly pro-abortion. We have women who have had abortions as members. Should we throw them out of our club because they weren't as "enlightened" as we were five years ago? One young lady in our club has a sister who is strongly pro-abortion, but she still loves her. Should I encourage her to hate her and have nothing to do with her until she becomes pro-life?

Once again, Lott spoke FAVORABLY of Thurmond winning the Mississippi electoral votes - and said the nation might have been better off had Thurmond won the presidency. If you have someone in your group who was pro-abort, now claims to be pro-life, but then speaks favorably of pro-abort positions, wouldn't you question their integrity towards the pro-life cause? Of course you would. This is not about the dead past, but the attitudes here and now about the problems of the past.

This Political Correctness has to be stopped or it will destroy us as a nation. For God's sake, give it a rest.

Sorry, but being strongly opposed to even the whiff of official, government segregation is hardly P.C. - this country was founded on the notion that all men are created equal, and upon the concept of equal protection under the law. Forced segregation is toxic to those hallowed notions, and resoundingly opposed by all who cherish what this country is about.

But please stop hounding him for saying a few nice words about an elderly man who hasn't been a segregationist for decades.

Once again, Lott resurrect the dead past, and now he's paying for it. Quit blaming us the way Hillary blamed the VRWC for Bill's predicament, and put the blame exactly where it belongs - on Trent Lott's shoulders.

He spoke favorably of Thurmond carrying Mississippi DECADES AFTER Thurmond recanted his segregationist views. Good grief, he wasn't endorsing segregation. He was endorsing the type of man Strom Thurmond became.

On the pro-life issue, not many people know this, but former governor Hugh Carey of New York became a pro-lifer after leaving office. If a pro-lifer went up to him at a pro-life rally, or at his birthday tribute, and after hearing him speak said that as a New Yorker they were proud to have once elected him, I would assume logically they were talking about the current Hugh Carey. Not the former pro-abort Hugh Carey.

For heaven's sake, Thurmond gave a fiery speech for Ronald Reagan in 1980, Lott said he was glad Mississippi voted for him, and everyone assumes he was endorsing segregation, even though Thurmond repudiated segregation years earlier. Ditto for the birthday party remarks.

Actually, I hadn't thought about the Hillary analogy, but now that you bring it up, it does fit. But not in the way you think. Lott's critics seem to see a conspiracy when there is none. As if Lott's part of some segregationist conspiracy, along with Strom Thurmond, and I suppose every other right-of-center Republican in the country. Ooooooh, we found out Lott supported segregation in Mississippi back in 1961. Oooooooh, and look at what I just found out....he praised a 100 year old man who was once a segregationist. Therefore, he must now be a segregationist and a racist, even though he's never even had the nerve to stand up and fight against affirmative action programs out of fear of the professional race pimps like Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus.

This whole thing is nothing but a professional race baiter witch hunt scam being run by the 'rats and the professional race pimps like Sharpton and Jackson. They took an innocent comment by Lott and made it into something sinister, knowing that once they played the race card, about half the Republicans on message boards and most of the Republicans in Washington would tuck tail and run. They knew Lott would apologize like a wimp, allowing them to announce that the apology "proves" he's a racist. Now, all they have to do is decide what they want. Should he be booted out, thus proving the 'Rats and the racist Congressional Black Caucus can dictate who we have as a leader? Or should they let him stay in return for payoffs to their constituencies?

After all, thanks to wimpish Republicans, including Lott and a lot of Freepers, it's likely be their call, not ours.