Robert Byrd is a horrible human being, version III

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Fool... just ignore them and move on.

So then what are you doing in this thread?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I eventually click on every thread more or less.

[MrFun]

Well, they say that curiousity kills the cat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They also say MrFun is an ironic name for you . Point being.... what's the point?

[MrFun]

never mind

[Kuciwalker]

Boris... I'm still waiting.

[Jaguar]

I'm gonna cut out some of the random tangents, like Ted Kennedy and whatnot, because they aren't relevant to the argument and I sense that very few people are reading our posts in their entirety. I'll

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Uh, whites. Are you now just being deliberately dense? I'll reiterate: Byrd was saying that he did not see the word "******" as referring to black people specifically. I don't see how you can still be so thick about this.

He uses ****** as an insult. If I call a straight person a *** for doing something stupid, it is an insult against homosexuals. The same applies here.

For what reason? You ignored the point that Byrd has never been the type to cave to party pressure, and there would be no reason to do it for the purposes of pandering to his constituents. Besides, the Democratic party never put a press onto its members to support the legislation.

I can't really give you an exact answer on Byrd's motives, but I don't think he changed his world view on the issue in two years. I think some other factor caused it. As I said, he's an opportunist. Not necessarily a bad quality in a politician, but I think his opportunism is also the main reason for his "change of heart."

Santorum, certainly...but Kennedy? What legislative horrors has he visited on us? Or will this be another revisit to Chappaquidick?

Yes. A family member met him in person as well, and he was a very rude man. But Kennedy is irrelevant here.

"Touted?" Let's lay off the hyperbole here. All I said was that, lately, it was pretty decent. You really do seem to like to stretch things here...

You lauded it.

That you still harp on this is just a sign of deficit in your overall argument.

No, it really isn't. I think it is the crux of the matter. He hasn't learned his lesson at all. Saying over and over again that his... slip of the tongue... is irrelevant doesn't make it true.

I'm skipping the Strom Thurmond tangent because it's getting uber-off-topic.

My perspective is this: Byrd is a hothead prone to speaking before he thinks. He's got a lot of old cultural baggage to shake off, but I think he's moved in the right direction over the years and I see no reason to think he isn't sincere in that movement. He's still quite a bit ignorant on many issues, and like I said, being a politician, he's got a basic level of scuzziness that's inherent.

He is very ignorant on a lot of issues. He has moved in the right direction, but the rest of the country moved there a hell of a lot faster. He gets no points from me for grudgingly moving towards tolerance.

When a Senator repudiates his past, apologizes for it and changes his voting behavior to reflect that over time, I take it seriously. I don't think his move against Thomas was based on race, but on politics. Plenty of others opposed his nomination, including a healthy dose of blacks.

Sorry, but I just don't see Byrd as the Great Satan of the Senate who's evil beyond compare. He's a jerk in many ways and an all-too-typical politician. But to say he's still a flaming racist is simply wrong, IMO. I personally don't think the West Virginian voting populace is racist and would tolerate sending a guy they believed to be so back to the senate.

Really, how has he changed his voting behavior? He filibustered every piece of legislation he could. There aren't any votes in the Senate where one side has a clearly racist position these days. So saying he hasn't voted in a racist manner since the 70s or so doesn't prove anything.


I'm not sure if you've engaged in the DeLay witchhunt, but Byrd OWNS DeLay in legislative Pork production. He is the all-time champion of Pork. That's a big reason why WV continues voting for him. That's a different subject in some respects, but I thought I should bring it up. Byrd is shamelessly corrupt as well.

I think the WV populace likes having a Senior member of the Senate. Let's face it, Byrd is the only important person the state has. So they're willing to overlook the fact that he is an awful, bigoted, corrupt one.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Boris... I'm still waiting.

You're going with the "Supplemental Troll Analogy" strategy, while I go for the "Heavy Artillery" strategy.

[Kuciwalker]

So I'm like the SP Art brigade attached to an Arm-5 div

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So I'm like the SP Art brigade attached to an Arm-5 div

Nerd.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Nerd.

You're the one who introduced me to that game, IIRC...

[Jaguar]

HOI? I don't think so.

[Berzerker]

Jaguar

I posed three questions to him.

1. Is "******" being used intentionally as a negative word?

Yes

2. What exactly is the "context" that mitigates his usage of the word?

Ever hear Chris Rock's routine? He complains about ******s and he's black. To him, and alot of people, "******" refers more to a lack of character.

[Jaguar]

I have heard Chris Rock.
Chris Rock is:
1. Humorous
2. Black
3. Not a leader of the Civil Rights Act filibuster.

Byrd has none of these qualities. That is why Chris Rock can get away with it and Robert Byrd can't.

[Berzerker]

But you're ignoring the word's meaning and the context and repeating something he did 40 years ago. The quote we are discussing was made recently and you used it as evidence he hasn't changed. He's a scumbag for plenty of reasons, but claiming he is a racist based on that quote is tenuous at best.