Racist Democrat Klan member dies.

[Nevermind]

I hope Senator Byrd likes hot weather.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obit_byrd

[upinsmoke]

Do you think it was possible that...y'know...maybe...Byrd might have changed his mind about the race issue? Was it just a political ploy, or was it a change of heart?

[SmokeyRamone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_byr ... ct_of_1964

Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[24] personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours

joining the Klan in your early 20's and writing it off as a mistake is one thing, but he obviously didn't shed his racism after he was elected. He's expressed regret and apologized numerous times over the years, but just like with Jesse Helms I don't buy it. The political climate was changing and he had to change with it.

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

[thejuggernaut]

Do you think it was possible that...y'know...maybe...Byrd might have changed his mind about the race issue? Was it just a political ploy, or was it a change of heart?

Sure. And Obama had a change of heart and started to love his country after distancing himself from Wright after being called on it.

And Bush cared abou8t Mexicans as people, not as cheap labor.

[upinsmoke]

Sure, what exactly? I didn't make a statement.

Do you have definitive proof Byrd was a racist until the end, or are you relying on the "Where there's smoke in the past, there's fire now" assessment? I'm not going to claim that Byrd WASN'T a racist until the end, because political aspirations can and do make an impact on a politician's publicly advertised leanings, but I don't believe for a second that a person's past automatically defines all future thought.

[thejuggernaut]

Sure, what exactly? I didn't make a statement.

Do you have definitive proof Byrd was a racist until the end, or are you relying on the "Where there's smoke in the past, there's fire now" assessment? I'm not going to claim that Byrd WASN'T a racist until the end, because political aspirations can and do make an impact on a politician's publicly advertised leanings, but I don't believe for a second that a person's past automatically defines all future thought.

Did you ask a question ?

[upinsmoke]

Do you have more than a ready-made opinion?

[thejuggernaut]

Do you have more than a ready-made opinion?

As opposed to an opinion not already formed or thought about ?

[upinsmoke]

Yeah, pretty much. So...does an earlier thought pattern preclude a change of heart?

[thejuggernaut]

Yeah, pretty much. So...does an earlier thought pattern preclude a change of heart?

Depends on the conviction of the beliefs and the age which constitutes "earlier".

Radical views don't usually 180 with time. They sometimes soften, but remain intact at their core. We're not talking about some guy who was misguided in his youth; this is a man who had radically racist views near 50.

[upinsmoke]

Yeah, pretty much. So...does an earlier thought pattern preclude a change of heart?

Depends on the conviction of the beliefs and the age which constitutes "earlier".

Radical views don't usually 180 with time. They sometimes soften, but remain intact at their core. We're not talking about some guy who was misguided in his youth; this is a man who had radically racist views near 50.

Thank you for the honest opinion. I do agree with some of that, to a point. I'm not entirely convinced with this case. The guy really did appear to try to mitigate some of his earlier dealings on race relations.

I do believe that Obama has grown out of some of his earlier convictions. He and Rev. Wright aren't exactly drinking buddies these days. Did he first distance himself from Wright for political purposes? Very likely -- but forced change can lead to real change, once someone confronts their own shortcomings and out-of-date attitudes.

Bush...what can I say? What about that guy is real, on any level? I have a hard time ferreting out a real thought process. I don't know whether he was driven by the business community, or a real understanding of the complex immigration issue.

[bane]

Yeah, pretty much. So...does an earlier thought pattern preclude a change of heart?

Depends on the conviction of the beliefs and the age which constitutes "earlier".

Radical views don't usually 180 with time. They sometimes soften, but remain intact at their core. We're not talking about some guy who was misguided in his youth; this is a man who had radically racist views near 50.

Thank you for the honest opinion. I do agree with some of that, to a point. I'm not entirely convinced with this case. The guy really did appear to try to mitigate some of his earlier dealings on race relations.

I do believe that Obama has grown out of some of his earlier convictions. He and Rev. Wright aren't exactly drinking buddies these days. Did he first distance himself from Wright for political purposes? Very likely -- but forced change can lead to real change, once someone confronts their own shortcomings and out-of-date attitudes.

I think he did the same thing Wallace did. He had racist views when they won him votes, and tried to back off that stance when those views were no longer politically advantageous. Who knows what he really thought? He was a politician.

[thejuggernaut]

Yeah, pretty much. So...does an earlier thought pattern preclude a change of heart?

Depends on the conviction of the beliefs and the age which constitutes "earlier".

Radical views don't usually 180 with time. They sometimes soften, but remain intact at their core. We're not talking about some guy who was misguided in his youth; this is a man who had radically racist views near 50.

Thank you for the honest opinion. I do agree with some of that, to a point. I'm not entirely convinced with this case. The guy really did appear to try to mitigate some of his earlier dealings on race relations.

I do believe that Obama has grown out of some of his earlier convictions. He and Rev. Wright aren't exactly drinking buddies these days. Did he first distance himself from Wright for political purposes? Very likely -- but forced change can lead to real change, once someone confronts their own shortcomings and out-of-date attitudes.

Bush...what can I say? What about that guy is real, on any level? I have a hard time ferreting out a real thought process. I don't know whether he was driven by the business community, or a real understanding of the complex immigration issue.

The other problem with Byrd was his dog fighting speech. Given his history and the language he used, a person honestly has to ask how much of that stems from his love of dogs.

[KneelandBobDylan]

Well, looks like we've seen the last of Roxxtard's Robert Byrd pic, you know the one that he posted everytime Republican racism was pointed out.

[EvilMadman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV_E

Racism or stupidity?

[vlad]

Well...today is his funeral. A rightie I know brought this up yesterday. I reminded him that while Byrd did indeed reflect the South of his time, he remained a Democrat. Unlike the other dixiecrats, who were welcomed into the GOP with open arms.

Byrd's big "sin" is that he remained a Democrat

[lerxstcat]

Yeah, pretty much. So...does an earlier thought pattern preclude a change of heart?

Depends on the conviction of the beliefs and the age which constitutes "earlier".

Radical views don't usually 180 with time. They sometimes soften, but remain intact at their core. We're not talking about some guy who was misguided in his youth; this is a man who had radically racist views near 50.

But WHEN he had those views, they were NOT radical, they were somewhat mainstream in the years when he gre up and became a young adult. The whole country changed its views in the 60s and 70s as well. You might think he changed out of political expediency, but it's just as likely that his views sincerely changed over time.

As for the "white nigger" comment on Fox News, well you get an old man, probably had some degree of dementia as almost everybody in their 80s and 90s has, and he is apt to slip up once in awhile. People with dementia will find themselves remembering and talking as though they are in their youth or adolescence again, and may use terms that were commonly used 50 years ago but openly acknowledged as not being okay in 2010.

He lived in interesting times, as the Chinese proverb says. May he rest in peace.

[thejuggernaut]

Yeah, pretty much. So...does an earlier thought pattern preclude a change of heart?

Depends on the conviction of the beliefs and the age which constitutes "earlier".

Radical views don't usually 180 with time. They sometimes soften, but remain intact at their core. We're not talking about some guy who was misguided in his youth; this is a man who had radically racist views near 50.

But WHEN he had those views, they were NOT radical, they were somewhat mainstream in the years when he gre up and became a young adult. The whole country changed its views in the 60s and 70s as well. You might think he changed out of political expediency, but it's just as likely that his views sincerely changed over time.

As for the "white nigger" comment on Fox News, well you get an old man, probably had some degree of dementia as almost everybody in their 80s and 90s has, and he is apt to slip up once in awhile. People with dementia will find themselves remembering and talking as though they are in their youth or adolescence again, and may use terms that were commonly used 50 years ago but openly acknowledged as not being okay in 2010.

He lived in interesting times, as the Chinese proverb says. May he rest in peace.

Yeah, like he didn't salivate at the opportunity to speak out about dog fighting after the Vick fiasco - one last chance to call a nigger a creature and an animal and to be revered for it.

Nazi views weren't viewed as radical in their time either. Perhaps you'd like to defend them as well.

In Lerx's view, the KKK weren't that bad; they were somewhat mainstream.

He's an Appalachian redneck racist, plain and simple.

[MurrayFiend]

Byrd was racist. I can't see spinning that.

[thejuggernaut]

Byrd was racist. I can't see spinning that.

Oh, they can try with their apologist bullshit about it being mainstream.

However, here's the catch - Michael Vick was raised in a dog fighting culture. Growing up, to him, dog fighting was mainstream.

A significant amount of people know this, especially politicians and lawmakers.

Since Michael Vick was merely a product of his environment, he's almost a victim. And since he is a product/victim of his environment, who was engaging in activities that were mainstream for his pocket of civilization, then Byrd calling him barbaric, a creature and an animal is FAR more sinister.

[lerxstcat]

Byrd was racist. I can't see spinning that.

Oh, they can try with their apologist bullshit about it being mainstream.

However, here's the catch - Michael Vick was raised in a dog fighting culture. Growing up, to him, dog fighting was mainstream.

A significant amount of people know this, especially politicians and lawmakers.

Since Michael Vick was merely a product of his environment, he's almost a victim. And since he is a product/victim of his environment, who was engaging in activities that were mainstream for his pocket of civilization, then Byrd calling him barbaric, a creature and an animal is FAR more sinister.

First to Murray's point, people can and do change. Whether Byrd did, who knows? He said he did.

To Juggernaut, although your post is sarcastic, to treat it as if it were serious, the comparison with Vick is bullshit, since dog fighting has been illegal for probably 50 years everywhere, he didn't grow up anywhere where it is mainstream. You can bet the first thing he was taught about it is that it's illegal, don't talk about it to outsiders. Kinda like drug dealing or moonshining.

[thejuggernaut]

Byrd was racist. I can't see spinning that.

Oh, they can try with their apologist bullshit about it being mainstream.

However, here's the catch - Michael Vick was raised in a dog fighting culture. Growing up, to him, dog fighting was mainstream.

A significant amount of people know this, especially politicians and lawmakers.

Since Michael Vick was merely a product of his environment, he's almost a victim. And since he is a product/victim of his environment, who was engaging in activities that were mainstream for his pocket of civilization, then Byrd calling him barbaric, a creature and an animal is FAR more sinister.

First to Murray's point, people can and do change. Whether Byrd did, who knows? He said he did.

To Juggernaut, although your post is sarcastic, to treat it as if it were serious, the comparison with Vick is bullshit, since dog fighting has been illegal for probably 50 years everywhere, he didn't grow up anywhere where it is mainstream. You can bet the first thing he was taught about it is that it's illegal, don't talk about it to outsiders. Kinda like drug dealing or moonshining.

Which President made murder illegal ?

[lerxstcat]

Which President made murder illegal ?

None of them did. First of all Presidents are executives, not legislators. Second, murder has been illegal since before recorded history even began, from everything we can tell. If you need a first written instance I imagine it's in the Code of Hammurabi.

[thejuggernaut]

Which President made murder illegal ?

None of them did. First of all Presidents are executives, not legislators. Second, murder has been illegal since before recorded history even began, from everything we can tell. If you need a first written instance I imagine it's in the Code of Hammurabi.

Ok good.

So we've established that Klan members knew murder was illegal, in spite of the Klan views being "mainstream".

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Which President made murder illegal ?

None of them did. First of all Presidents are executives, not legislators. Second, murder has been illegal since before recorded history even began, from everything we can tell. If you need a first written instance I imagine it's in the Code of Hammurabi.

Ok good.

So we've established that Klan members knew murder was illegal, in spite of the Klan views being "mainstream".

Did Byrd kill someone?

[lerxstcat]

Which President made murder illegal ?

None of them did. First of all Presidents are executives, not legislators. Second, murder has been illegal since before recorded history even began, from everything we can tell. If you need a first written instance I imagine it's in the Code of Hammurabi.

Ok good.

So we've established that Klan members knew murder was illegal, in spite of the Klan views being "mainstream".

First of all, I didn't say that being in the Klan was mainstream. But some degree of racism WAS mainstream in the 30's, 40s and 50s, both in the South and in the Nortth as well. Barack's white granny was scared of black men and she lived in the Great Plains. Schools, neighborhoods, restaurants and stores were segregated in those days, in the North as well as in the South.

So when was the last time Byrd was in the Klan, and was he ever actually charged with murdering anyone?

[thejuggernaut]

None of them did. First of all Presidents are executives, not legislators. Second, murder has been illegal since before recorded history even began, from everything we can tell. If you need a first written instance I imagine it's in the Code of Hammurabi.

Ok good.

So we've established that Klan members knew murder was illegal, in spite of the Klan views being "mainstream".

First of all, I didn't say that being in the Klan was mainstream. But some degree of racism WAS mainstream in the 30's, 40s and 50s, both in the South and in the Nortth as well. Barack's white granny was scared of black men and she lived in the Great Plains. Schools, neighborhoods, restaurants and stores were segregated in those days, in the North as well as in the South.

So when was the last time Byrd was in the Klan, and was he ever actually charged with murdering anyone?

Irrelevant.

You justified Byrd's LEADERSHIP role in the KKK, a VIOLENT hate group, because his views were mainstream for their time.

You say Vick's involvement in dog fighting being a cultural thing is bullshit because dog fighting has been illegal for decades.

Well, lots of the violent acts committed by the KKK were illegal, no ?

[lerxstcat]

Irrelevant.

You justified Byrd's LEADERSHIP role in the KKK, a VIOLENT hate group, because his views were mainstream for their time.

You say Vick's involvement in dog fighting being a cultural thing is bullshit because dog fighting has been illegal for decades.

Well, lots of the violent acts committed by the KKK were illegal, no ?

It's not irrelevant at all. Is Byrd himself accused of taking any lives? and you're lying when you say i justified Byrd's leadership role in the KKK or his membership, period. Explanation and justification are two different things. If I say Hitler dragged Europe into WWII, am I justifying his actions or am I just explaining the conditions that pertaind at the time?

What I DID go on to say was that such positions were common when he was young, and that most people who were raised with those views changed their views over time.

Your seemingly deep-seated desire to deny the possibility of this being true indicates considerable prejudice of your own. Why do you think you feel that way?

[thejuggernaut]

Irrelevant.

You justified Byrd's LEADERSHIP role in the KKK, a VIOLENT hate group, because his views were mainstream for their time.

You say Vick's involvement in dog fighting being a cultural thing is bullshit because dog fighting has been illegal for decades.

Well, lots of the violent acts committed by the KKK were illegal, no ?

It's not irrelevant at all. Is Byrd himself accused of taking any lives? and you're lying when you say i justified Byrd's leadership role in the KKK or his membership, period. Explanation and justification are two different things. If I say Hitler dragged Europe into WWII, am I justifying his actions or am I just explaining the conditions that pertaind at the time?

What I DID go on to say was that such positions were common when he was young, and that most people who were raised with those views changed their views over time.

Your seemingly deep-seated desire to deny the possibility of this being true indicates considerable prejudice of your own. Why do you think you feel that way?

Good, I'm prejudiced against the KKK. I am sorry my dislike for violent hate groups perplexes you.

You said the Vick comparison was bullshit because dog fighting was illegal and he would have been told to keep quiet, not long after rationalizing Byrd's leadership role in a hate group that committed illegal acts.

By all means, keep justifying his leadership role in a hate group.

[lerxstcat]

Irrelevant.

You justified Byrd's LEADERSHIP role in the KKK, a VIOLENT hate group, because his views were mainstream for their time.

You say Vick's involvement in dog fighting being a cultural thing is bullshit because dog fighting has been illegal for decades.

Well, lots of the violent acts committed by the KKK were illegal, no ?

It's not irrelevant at all. Is Byrd himself accused of taking any lives? and you're lying when you say i justified Byrd's leadership role in the KKK or his membership, period. Explanation and justification are two different things. If I say Hitler dragged Europe into WWII, am I justifying his actions or am I just explaining the conditions that pertaind at the time?

What I DID go on to say was that such positions were common when he was young, and that most people who were raised with those views changed their views over time.

Your seemingly deep-seated desire to deny the possibility of this being true indicates considerable prejudice of your own. Why do you think you feel that way?

Good, I'm prejudiced against the KKK. I am sorry my dislike for violent hate groups perplexes you.

You said the Vick comparison was bullshit because dog fighting was illegal and he would have been told to keep quiet, not long after rationalizing Byrd's leadership role in a hate group that committed illegal acts.

By all means, keep justifying his leadership role in a hate group.

I'm not talking about the KKK, I never was. YOU keep bringing that up. I am talking about society as a whole back then, not the KKK, but you apparently don't understand the difference, even though I've spelled it out in each post.

I was talking about society in general back then, not necessaril;y Byrd's membership in the KKK in particular. Believe it or not, not everybody who lived in the South back then was in the KKK. And again, is Byrd specifically accused of any illegal acts, either as a Klan member or otherwise?

So is it your contention that people can't change their views in the course of their lifetime?