Racist Democrat Klan member dies.

[thejuggernaut]

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?

Good for society back then. Byrd was a regional leader for a violent hate group. Society being bigoted back then doesn't change that.

It's a thread about Robert Byrd. In fact, it's about Robert Byrd being a racist. Robert Byrd was a leader in the KKK.

Thanks for the history lesson on southern enrollment in the KKK; I was under the impression that everyone south of 38 27 wore a white hood.

As for "my contention", I've already answered that. Long ago. You quoted it when you initially came in to justify a Klansman's activities. If you don't remember it or have trouble understanding it, that's your own problem.

[lerxstcat]

I never justified the Klan's activities, you can lie about that all you want and it won't change the facts. Explanation is not the same as justification.

And again, Was Byrd EVER accused of any crimes associated with his Klan membership? And when was the last time he claimed to be a Klansman?

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question: Do you think people are capable of change, or not? And if not, then how do you explain the passage of the Civil Rights Act at all, then?

[thejuggernaut]

I never justified the Klan's activities, you can lie about that all you want and it won't change the facts. Explanation is not the same as justification.

Yes, you did. Byrd was a leader in the Klan. You tried to mitigate his membership (not to mention his leadership) in the Klan by saying it was a fairly mainstream view.

And again, Was Byrd EVER accused of any crimes associated with his Klan membership? And when was the last time he claimed to be a Klansman?

He didn't "claim" to be a Klansman. He was one, and he admitted it.

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question: Do you think people are capable of change, or not? And if not, then how do you explain the passage of the Civil Rights Act at all, then?

You seem to be unable to find a simple answer: Do you think you are you capable of reading my replies to upinsmoke or not ? And, if not, are you cable of going back through your own replies ?

[lerxstcat]

You made a smarmy answer to upinsmoke's question, and said sure. When he reiterated the question, you asked him if he had a question.

When I say "claimed" I am not implying that he wasn't in the Klan at one time. I am saying that I doubt that he still avowed membership in the last several decades of his life. So to rephrase, when was the last time he avowed allegiance to the KKK? Do you know?

And again, if you think that people can NOT change, how do you explain passage of the Civil Rights Act by a country that practiced segregation in so many ways only a decade before?

Was Byrd ever accused of a crime in association with his former KKK membership? That's a simple question.

[lerxstcat]

I have another question for you, Juggernaut. Does your city have a predominantly black ghetto? If so, how do you think it came to be? Because at one time it was required segregation, even in supposedly enlightened Canada. So don't think that the views of the past that you look down on didn't apply in your own neck of the woods; they did.

[thejuggernaut]

You made a smarmy answer to upinsmoke's question, and said sure. When he reiterated the question, you asked him if he had a question.

That's it ?

That's the end of the discussion with him ?

When I say "claimed" I am not implying that he wasn't in the Klan at one time. I am saying that I doubt that he still avowed membership in the last several decades of his life. So to rephrase, when was the last time he avowed allegiance to the KKK? Do you know?

We know he was still a segregationist when he was nearly 50. He's had a few slip ups since.

And again, if you think that people can NOT change, how do you explain passage of the Civil Rights Act by a country that practiced segregation in so many ways only a decade before?

Hey, does Obamacare have %100 approval from every single American ?

Was Byrd ever accused of a crime in association with his former KKK membership? That's a simple question.

I see. So since he was never charged with a crime it doesn't matter if he was a hateful racist ?

[thejuggernaut]

I have another question for you, Juggernaut. Does your city have a predominantly black ghetto? If so, how do you think it came to be? Because at one time it was required segregation, even in supposedly enlightened Canada. So don't think that the views of the past that you look down on didn't apply in your own neck of the woods; they did.

Awww, sounds like Lerx has a touch of guilt because his Grandpappy and his pals done hanged them some niggers.

[lerxstcat]

I have another question for you, Juggernaut. Does your city have a predominantly black ghetto? If so, how do you think it came to be? Because at one time it was required segregation, even in supposedly enlightened Canada. So don't think that the views of the past that you look down on didn't apply in your own neck of the woods; they did.

Awww, sounds like Lerx has a touch of guilt because his Grandpappy and his pals done hanged them some niggers.

My family is from New York State. I grew up in Mississippi because my dad was in the USAF. Way to avoid the question and its implications for YOUR grandpappy, though.

[thejuggernaut]

I have another question for you, Juggernaut. Does your city have a predominantly black ghetto? If so, how do you think it came to be? Because at one time it was required segregation, even in supposedly enlightened Canada. So don't think that the views of the past that you look down on didn't apply in your own neck of the woods; they did.

Awww, sounds like Lerx has a touch of guilt because his Grandpappy and his pals done hanged them some niggers.

My family is from New York State. I grew up in Mississippi because my dad was in the USAF. Way to avoid the question and its implications for YOUR grandpappy, though.

Your question was avoided because it was beyond retarded.

Everyone knows there was segregation.

This thread is about one man, not nations that had segregation.
We get it Lerx - his racial hatred wasn't that bad because it was mainstream.

And the Nazis weren't that bad because their views were mainstream.

[lerxstcat]

You don't get it at all. The point is that people can and do change. the point is that people were just as racist in the city in which you live as they were anywhere else, and probably still are.

Your intolerance is not much different from the racism you claim to abhor, that is the point. You are no better than a racist in your own set of prejudices, hating an old man who is now dead, who did nothing to you, and as far as you can prove, did nothing tangibly wrong to anybody.

By your lights you should hate all your ancestors, since they were likely all racists too. They lived in a racist time, after all, right?

[thejuggernaut]

You don't get it at all. The point is that people can and do change. the point is that people were just as racist in the city in which you live as they were anywhere else, and probably still are.

Your intolerance is not much different from the racism you claim to abhor, that is the point. You are no better than a racist in your own set of prejudices, hating an old man who is now dead, who did nothing to you, and as far as you can prove, did nothing tangibly wrong to anybody.

By your lights you should hate all your ancestors, since they were likely all racists too. They lived in a racist time, after all, right?

Great, paint me as a bigot for hating the KKK.

I'm really not as sensitive about it as you seem to be.

Now, run along and start getting to work on your Nazi sympathizing dissertation.

[thejuggernaut]

You don't get it at all. The point is that people can and do change. the point is that people were just as racist in the city in which you live as they were anywhere else, and probably still are.

If they're still racist, then they haven't changed a whole lot, have they ?

Christ, you're a bleeding imbecile.

[lerxstcat]

You don't get it at all. The point is that people can and do change. the point is that people were just as racist in the city in which you live as they were anywhere else, and probably still are.

If they're still racist, then they haven't changed a whole lot, have they ?

Christ, you're a bleeding imbecile.

SOME undoubtedly still are. You, for example, have simply substituted a different kind of intolerance from all indications.

You still haven't come up with anything that you profess that Byrd DID - tangible acts of racism that actually hurt anyone. He repudiated his past and you have no proof that he was not sincere. That makes you as bad as you claim he was.

[thejuggernaut]

You don't get it at all. The point is that people can and do change. the point is that people were just as racist in the city in which you live as they were anywhere else, and probably still are.

If they're still racist, then they haven't changed a whole lot, have they ?

Christ, you're a bleeding imbecile.

SOME undoubtedly still are. You, for example, have simply substituted a different kind of intolerance from all indications.

You still haven't come up with anything that you profess that Byrd DID - tangible acts of racism that actually hurt anyone. He repudiated his past and you have no proof that he was not sincere. That makes you as bad as you claim he was.

We get it Lerx - people have who have no tolerance for hate groups are bigots themselves.

The people who wrote and signed into power the Civil Rights Acts must also be bigots - their intolerance of people's intolerance inspired them to write a law FORCING people to coexist.

By the way, I didn't "profess" Byrd did anything tangible. Do you need me to teach you the meaning of the word "profess" like I did "claim" ?

Christ, you're a weird mix of Moggio and P13.

Like I said, you're a bleeding imbecile.

[lerxstcat]

It must be strange for you to live in the Bizarro world you create for yourself, Buggernaut. You process information ass-backwards invariably.

[thejuggernaut]

It must be strange for you to live in the Bizarro world you create for yourself, Buggernaut. You process information ass-backwards invariably.

Yeah, ok white supremacist apologist.

How ya gettin' along with the meaning of the word "profess" ?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

It must be strange for you to live in the Bizarro world you create for yourself, Buggernaut. You process information ass-backwards invariably.

Why waste your time? He's the Canadian Mummy, Itjuggsalot.

[thejuggernaut]

It must be strange for you to live in the Bizarro world you create for yourself, Buggernaut. You process information ass-backwards invariably.

He's the Canadian Mummy, Itjuggsalot.

Nope.

Prove it.

I'll wait.

[upinsmoke]

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question: Do you think people are capable of change, or not? And if not, then how do you explain the passage of the Civil Rights Act at all, then?

You seem to be unable to find a simple answer: Do you think you are you capable of reading my replies to upinsmoke or not ? And, if not, are you cable of going back through your own replies ?

Seriously, Lerx...he answered the question. I got what I wanted out of it.

[thejuggernaut]

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question: Do you think people are capable of change, or not? And if not, then how do you explain the passage of the Civil Rights Act at all, then?

You seem to be unable to find a simple answer: Do you think you are you capable of reading my replies to upinsmoke or not ? And, if not, are you cable of going back through your own replies ?

Seriously, Lerx...he answered the question. I got what I wanted out of it.

I thought it was obvious. I replied directly to you and you acknowledged it.

For whatever reason, Lerx seems unable to see that part of the exchange and continues to ask the questions you'd already asked and received the answer to.

Ahh well, they were your questions, and you got your answers and are (apparently) satisfied with the answers, so that's all that really matters.

[lerxstcat]

You seem to be unable to answer a simple question: Do you think people are capable of change, or not? And if not, then how do you explain the passage of the Civil Rights Act at all, then?

You seem to be unable to find a simple answer: Do you think you are you capable of reading my replies to upinsmoke or not ? And, if not, are you cable of going back through your own replies ?

Seriously, Lerx...he answered the question. I got what I wanted out of it.

I didn't see where you brought up the Civil Rights Act as proof that people can and do change in relation to the original question. If you did do that and I missed it, I apologize. If not I'd love to hear a serious answer from Itjuggsalot, if he indeed has anything besides obfuscation to offer. I doubt he does, though.

[thejuggernaut]

You seem to be unable to find a simple answer: Do you think you are you capable of reading my replies to upinsmoke or not ? And, if not, are you cable of going back through your own replies ?

Seriously, Lerx...he answered the question. I got what I wanted out of it.

I didn't see where you brought up the Civil Rights Act as proof that people can and do change in relation to the original question. If you did do that and I missed it, I apologize. If not I'd love to hear a serious answer from Itjuggsalot, if he indeed has anything besides obfuscation to offer. I doubt he does, though.

Do you have anything original to offer ?

You parrot upinsmokes' questions because you're too dumb to realize they were answered.

Now you're parroting MOMP.

I've already addressed whether I think people can change or not. Your Civil Rights Act question is irrelevant and retarded.

You're an extremely dumb human. That's why you think there's been obfuscation on my part. That's why you have "needs to STFU !" under your username.

Upinsmoke asked if I thought people can change. I answered it. He acknowledged it then, and again today.

Because you're dumb, you thought it wasn't answered. It was, therefore your Civil Rights Act question is both irrelevant and retarded. Toss redundant in that list as well.

[lerxstcat]

So new information has no impact on your prejudiced opinions then. Got it. I mention an important event that belies your opinion but you refuse to look at anything that might shake your unfounded opinion. Got it.

Oh, and my previous title was Metal Sludge Voice of Reason. It was changed because I spoke out against a different kind of prejudice that just happens to be supported or popular on this board.

When you're right, it doesn;'t matter if the world thinks you're wrong. That's what principles are about.

[thejuggernaut]

So new information has no impact on your prejudiced opinions then. Got it. I mention an important event that belies your opinion but you refuse to look at anything that might shake your unfounded opinion. Got it.

Oh, and my previous title was Metal Sludge Voice of Reason. It was changed because I spoke out against a different kind of prejudice that just happens to be supported or popular on this board.

When you're right, it doesn;'t matter if the world thinks you're wrong. That's what principles are about.

LOL

Hey Lerx, if you can calm your tantrum from not being answered directly, and take a break from your white supremacist sympathizing, would you do us the honor of telling us again how Hungwell might have contributed to Iggy's death ?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

It must be strange for you to live in the Bizarro world you create for yourself, Buggernaut. You process information ass-backwards invariably.

He's the Canadian Mummy, Itjuggsalot.

Nope.

Prove it.

I'll wait.

[MickeyG]

Oh, and my previous title was Metal Sludge Voice of Reason. It was changed because I spoke out against a different kind of prejudice that just happens to be supported or popular on this board.

You don't mean Ginger Hatin' do ya?

[upinsmoke]

I didn't see where you brought up the Civil Rights Act as proof that people can and do change in relation to the original question. If you did do that and I missed it, I apologize. If not I'd love to hear a serious answer from Itjuggsalot, if he indeed has anything besides obfuscation to offer. I doubt he does, though.

I didn't bring up evidence for an argument, because I was asking Juggs his personal opinion, not whether I agreed with his opinion. That wasn't the point. I personally feel a person can have a change of heart at ANY age, but have to agree that most individuals really won't do that, in all honesty. Maybe Byrd changed his attitude on such subjects out of personal guilt, or maybe he only cared how he was viewed by the public for political expediency. Only Byrd knows that, and no one can ask him now. Juggs likes to stir the toilet, just like a plethora of posters here, but he did put that aside and answer the question honestly.

[lerxstcat]

I didn't see where you brought up the Civil Rights Act as proof that people can and do change in relation to the original question. If you did do that and I missed it, I apologize. If not I'd love to hear a serious answer from Itjuggsalot, if he indeed has anything besides obfuscation to offer. I doubt he does, though.

I didn't bring up evidence for an argument, because I was asking Juggs his personal opinion, not whether I agreed with his opinion. That wasn't the point. I personally feel a person can have a change of heart at ANY age, but have to agree that most individuals really won't do that, in all honesty. Maybe Byrd changed his attitude on such subjects out of personal guilt, or maybe he only cared how he was viewed by the public for political expediency. Only Byrd knows that, and no one can ask him now. Juggs likes to stir the toilet, just like a plethora of posters here, but he did put that aside and answer the question honestly.

That's a reasonable point of view. I just felt that the Civil Rights Act was worth mentioning as proof that an entire nation's views CAN change. Not that the passage of it changed everybody's minds overnight, but it represented a sea change from the previous prevailing view of society - which for a long time was "separate but equal" in name, but not in reality.

I wondered if he had considered that real and profound event in light of his apparent view that people do NOT change, or that they went along for political reasons.

That's often true, but people DO have real changes of heart in life, for numerous reasons. I'd rather give the man the benefit of the doubt than see him in Hell.

If you believe in Hell, then you believe in Christianity - which is based on forgiveness. You have to let go of hate to free yourself.

I mean, I wish Osama Bin Laden were dead, so the threat he poses was gone. But I don't wish Hell upon him; that's eternity.

I know most here aren't Christian, but I would like to think the man was sorry for any wrongs he did and was forgiven. That doesn't condone anything, it's just forgiveness.

[upinsmoke]

That's a reasonable point of view. I just felt that the Civil Rights Act was worth mentioning as proof that an entire nation's views CAN change. Not that the passage of it changed everybody's minds overnight, but it represented a sea change from the previous prevailing view of society - which for a long time was "separate but equal" in name, but not in reality.

I wondered if he had considered that real and profound event in light of his apparent view that people do NOT change, or that they went along for political reasons.

That's often true, but people DO have real changes of heart in life, for numerous reasons. I'd rather give the man the benefit of the doubt than see him in Hell.

If you believe in Hell, then you believe in Christianity - which is based on forgiveness. You have to let go of hate to free yourself.

I mean, I wish Osama Bin Laden were dead, so the threat he poses was gone. But I don't wish Hell upon him; that's eternity.

I know most here aren't Christian, but I would like to think the man was sorry for any wrongs he did and was forgiven. That doesn't condone anything, it's just forgiveness.

Ok. I agree that a mass change can occur; at what level and with numerous reasons for doing so -- you just can't paint every person with the same brush stroke. One person might change their views overnight, while another might have to speak the language to 'talk themselves into it', so to speak, while not really feeling the love at first. Some people just do it because they know it's the right thing to do. While others never get it, and do it because of social pressures.

I don't believe in hell. I think you make your own heaven or hell right here on Earth, regardless of your personal circumstances. Maybe, if a bit of our energy does move on from here, you take that heaven or hell with you...who amongst the living knows for sure? I don't believe there is anything out there watching and recording our actions, making a list, or checking it twice.

(Some) animals practice altruism, if they have received or witnessed it. It's a socially learned behavior, maybe even innate for a few. I personally suspect it has much to do with self-preservation. One observes that those that have a rich social life has much more security, health and wealth in general, compared to those on the fringe of whatever social group(s).

Additionally, I feel as an atheist/agnostic that I won't be 'forgiven' or eternally judged for any wrong I do, or rewarded for the perceived good. Does that remove my moral obligations? That's an emphatic "NO". If anything, to me at least, that means I have to adjust my actions and thought processes NOW. Not later. The only entities judging me are my peers, as well as my own thoughts.

As much as I would love to know morally bankrupt fuckheads such as Hitler and bin Laden would be punished eternally, I am not at all convinced that is the case. Does that mean that a monster such as bin Laden can't change his 'heart' or mind at some point? Again, no...but, I don't think such a person could come to grips with the 'evil' they've created -- too much guilt over what they know deep down somewhere was horribly wrong, and can't erase -- so they stubbornly cling to that which they think approves or will forgive. Someone like that has far too much of their life and time invested in an ideal or lifestyle. Who wants to have the crushing feeling that you wasted so much on something that wasn't true? THAT'S a bitter pill to swallow, indeed.

[thejuggernaut]

I didn't see where you brought up the Civil Rights Act as proof that people can and do change in relation to the original question. If you did do that and I missed it, I apologize. If not I'd love to hear a serious answer from Itjuggsalot, if he indeed has anything besides obfuscation to offer. I doubt he does, though.

I didn't bring up evidence for an argument, because I was asking Juggs his personal opinion, not whether I agreed with his opinion. That wasn't the point. I personally feel a person can have a change of heart at ANY age, but have to agree that most individuals really won't do that, in all honesty. Maybe Byrd changed his attitude on such subjects out of personal guilt, or maybe he only cared how he was viewed by the public for political expediency. Only Byrd knows that, and no one can ask him now. Juggs likes to stir the toilet, just like a plethora of posters here, but he did put that aside and answer the question honestly.

That's a reasonable point of view. I just felt that the Civil Rights Act was worth mentioning as proof that an entire nation's views CAN change. Not that the passage of it changed everybody's minds overnight, but it represented a sea change from the previous prevailing view of society - which for a long time was "separate but equal" in name, but not in reality.

I wondered if he had considered that real and profound event in light of his apparent view that people do NOT change, or that they went along for political reasons.

There's nothing "apparent" about it, unless you're not a very bright person.

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.

I'll translate it for you.

What I said was "yes people can change. It does depend on how strongly they believe something and their age when their belief was strong. Radicals usually don't completely reverse their views, but they do soften them. I don't think Byrd changed sincerely because he was almost 50 when he was still holding very nasty views."

Is it possible Byrd changed ? Of course. I don't think he did; I just think he stopped saying nasty things because he's a politician. Again I reference the Vick incident. I don't care about the "white niggers" fiasco; sure, it's most commonly used when people use the word "nigger" about a black person and try to cover with "but...there are white niggers too". However, the term "wigger" exists so, who knows - he's an old man who may have heard "wigger" asked what it was about and it got stuck on his brain.

Why "white nigger" would get stuck on his brain is another matter, but is only speculation. I chalk that up to a really old man searching for things to say and made a boo boo. Like a Don Imus and the nappy headed ho incident. I know Byrd wasn't trying to crack a joke and Imus was, but in both cases, it was merely a matter of age and not really understanding what they were saying.

The Vick thing is telling. I have no doubt Byrd is an animal lover. But the way he was speaking........there was a certain hatred and contempt in his face and voice. The language was frighteningly similar.

I just don't think Byrd changed much at his core.

As he got older and his innards began to rot, I am sure he became more concerned about his prostate on a day to day basis than he did about the creatures, the blackest specimen from the wilds.