Robert Byrd is a horrible human being, version III

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Wow a whole thread just to argue with me.

First, I'll dispense with a strawman that Jaguar seems not to be able to comprehend:

I do not defend Robert Byrd's racism in the past nor in everything he does, nor do I claim he is without any racist beliefs today. What I have done is pointed out two things: Byrd's KKK membership from 60 years ago isn't very relevant since he has both repudiated it and we all must acknowledge that people are allowed to change their views. Byrd was a product of his era and home region, and his views were slow in changing, no doubt about it.

This leads us to the 2001 "white ******" comment (one for which Byrd has apologized several times). The context is such that it is clear what Byrd is trying to say--completely ineptly--is that he meant the word "******" not to be racial, but behavioral. It was a stupid thing to say, but his intent was to claim it wasn't about race. I've heard this line of defense before, actually. It's pretty dumb, but Byrd certainly has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth.

He meant it to be behavioral? So black people behave, erm, worse than white people? If you use "******" to describe white people, you mean they're behaving like black people. And when you choose that particular word, I think it's a negative connotation.

So he's still using "******" as an insult, regardless of whether it's behavioral or whatever. Nothing you say can mitigate it.

Also, the stupidity/foot-in-mouth defense isn't a very good one, because most Democrats are convinced he's a brilliant orator when he criticizes Bush. Pick one or the other.

Now let's dispense with some of the other things in the post:



Excuse me, but I thought that those who defend the Confederate Flag say it's not a symbol of racism at all, correct?

I don't like the display of the flag on public buildings because A) it's a traitorous emblem and B) it is a bitter reminder of slavery to blacks, so it's damned insensitive. But I can easily see the position of those who don't believe it's a racist symbol. So defending the confederate flag doesn't make one a de facto racist. Especially if one is from a region where the populace tends to get pretty up-in-arms about the flag issue, and defending it scores political points.

Of course that alone isn't a sign of racism, but when you couple it with KKK membership, a 14 hour civil rights filibuster, prattling about ******s, etc, it adds up.

And as for the company, Republicans didn't have a problem keeping company with Thurmond and Helms for decades...

Neither did the Dems, and they had him when he was far worse. But this isn't a partisan thread. This isn't an anti-Democrat thread. This is an anti-Robert Byrd thread.

Not a vote I agree with, but keep in mind the company he was with on said vote. Would you say every single person who voted against that law is a "horrible human being," and if so, why aren't you so strident and shrill in your attacks on them as you are on Byrd?

They, for the most part, weren't racists as well. I can only take so many types of bigotry.

Oh, and yes, I ommitted his vote on hate crimes because he had an earlier vote against it.

Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

The fact is, gay rights weren't nearly as advanced in 1996 as they are today. The acceptance of gays in our culture was still very problematic. All but 10 senators voted in favor of DOMA. It's a relatively recent phenomenon that has seen large-scale tolerance towards gays (much of it spurred by the 1998 Sheppard murder).

So I see in Byrd a changing position on the issue, as he's changed on race as well. Why don't you allow people to change their views?

I welcome it, in this case. Unfortunately, this is the second time Byrd's been a little slow. You would think he would have learned his lesson by now. Also, I believe that he is only voting moderate on these issues now because of party loyalty. And let's put this in perspective. Sheppard was killed in 1998, and it took him four years to admit that it was because he was gay . You can bet he's not one of the Senators who stood up to the ridiculous "no homos" amendment.

Regardless, the issue of his stances on gay rights have never come up before and are irrelevant to what I say, since I have never defended Byrd as being a wonderful human being. The fact is, he's a U.S. Senator, ergo a politician, and therefore there are already going to be stark limits on how great a person he is.

We should still have some standards. I think even as Senators go, he is an awful human being.

And how much of that is weighted towards the earlier parts of his career? The man has been a Senator since 1958. That's a long record he has, and since a huge amount of civil rights issues came at a time where he was an acknowledged racist asshat, it's not so surprising.

Interesting question. I doubt that includes his entire record. He has plenty of votes the ACLU hates these days, too. He's anti-gay marriage

The bottom line here is this: I am willing to believe that Byrd has changed in his racist stance and that he's not remotely the racist he was. I've no doubt there lives plenty of ignorance in him, but that's to be expected of an 83-year-old from a region that isn't exactly known as a haven of tolerance.

Not remotely the racist he was, yes. He no longer has the opportunity to stand for fourteen hours straight attacking the human dignity that unites us all. Fortunately, the decent people in the Senate banded together and managed to ram the Civil Rights Act through. Despite his efforts, we've managed to move on.

If there were still Dixiecrats around and we were still debating whether Black people deserve to sit in the same restaurants as white people, what side do you think he would be on?

He is an opportunist, pure and simple. You can tell that from the additional quote I posted. He changed positions mostly out of convenience.

But trying to use him to paint the Democratic party is absurd, as absurd as it would be to use Helms as iconic of the Republicans when he was still in the Senate in 1998 or whatever.

I don't care whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. Helms and Thurmond are equally shameful, which is why I made a point of including the time they banded together on defending the CSA flag.

I won't and can't defend the awful things he's done, but for pete's sake, at least when attacking him, use awful things that are relevant. Harping on the KKK issue and the "white ******" comment is just plain weak.

The KKK issue is nothing compared to the Civil Rights filibuster. He stood and spoke for fourteen hours straight. The KKK issue alone is weak, yes, but "white ******" is not. There is NO reason ANYBODY should ever say something like that, and especially not a public figure on National TV, and even more so, not the Senator with the absolute worst record on racism.

[Verto]

Robert Byrd is a misunderstood beacon of light.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Why would you think that one comment is all he has to say on it?

Maybe not, but it strikes me as interesting that he chose those words, especially when talking to kids!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jaguar
He meant it to be behavioral? So black people behave, erm, worse than white people? If you use "******" to describe white people, you mean they're behaving like black people. And when you choose that particular word, I think it's a negative connotation.

So he's still using "******" as an insult, regardless of whether it's behavioral or whatever. Nothing you say can mitigate it.

I don't see how you could miss the point again. *sigh*

Byrd was saying that he did not think "******" specifically referred to black people, so when saying it's a behavioral issue, you logically can't think he's saying it's white people acting like black people. Duh.

Also, the stupidity/foot-in-mouth defense isn't a very good one, because most Democrats are convinced he's a brilliant orator when he criticizes Bush. Pick one or the other.

First, I don't give a rats ass as to what most Democrats think about it, as this was about what I thought of him, correct? You say it's not a partisan issue, but then say this? Wearing thin, Jaguar.

Second, that the man is a great orator on the senate floor doesn't mean he isn't capable of saying stupid things. Yes, he's a very eloquent and forceful speaker on many issues. Why would that mean he can't say dumb things?

Of course that alone isn't a sign of racism, but when you couple it with KKK membership, a 14 hour civil rights filibuster, prattling about ******s, etc, it adds up.

All issues that occured decades ago...

Neither did the Dems, and they had him when he was far worse. But this isn't a partisan thread. This isn't an anti-Democrat thread. This is an anti-Robert Byrd thread.

Yeah, right.

They, for the most part, weren't racists as well. I can only take so many types of bigotry.

Oh, and yes, I ommitted his vote on hate crimes because he had an earlier vote against it.

So you omitted a later vote that shows a change in position to something you favor...because it would hurt your argument. Doesn't that tell you a little something about the stridency of your position here?

I welcome it, in this case. Unfortunately, this is the second time Byrd's been a little slow. You would think he would have learned his lesson by now. Also, I believe that he is only voting moderate on these issues now because of party loyalty.

Party loyalty? You don't know Byrd. He's routinely been considered one of the mavericks in the Democratic party. He doesn't give a rat's ass about loyalty to the party if its in conflict to his views.

Byrd is, by and large, a conservative, no doubt about that.

And let's put this in perspective. Sheppard was killed in 1998, and it took him four years to admit that it was because he was gay .

Huh? Where the hell did you get this? Do you have some link that shows him saying such a thing??

You can bet he's not one of the Senators who stood up to the ridiculous "no homos" amendment.

What ammendment are you talking about here?

You do realize he has voiced opposition to Bush's gay marriage ammendment proposal, yes?

We should still have some standards. I think even as Senators go, he is an awful human being.

I think he's about run-of-the-mill, actually. And in many of his stances, I find him a lot more palatable than others.

Interesting question. I doubt that includes his entire record. He has plenty of votes the ACLU hates these days, too. He's anti-gay marriage

Do you agree with the ACLU on everything? I don't even do that. And lots of Senators are anti-gay marriage. Is that something that's supposed to be news?

Not remotely the racist he was, yes. He no longer has the opportunity to stand for fourteen hours straight attacking the human dignity that unites us all. Fortunately, the decent people in the Senate banded together and managed to ram the Civil Rights Act through. Despite his efforts, we've managed to move on.

Yes, we have. From 1964. Do you expect me to say he was on the right side of that issue? Of course he wasn't. Honestly, I don't see what you're trying to say here. Your arguments are emotional drivel, nothing more.

If there were still Dixiecrats around and we were still debating whether Black people deserve to sit in the same restaurants as white people, what side do you think he would be on?

Hardly a fair question. I never argued that Byrd's attitudes haven't changed with the times. If the times hadn't changed, who knows where various people would fall? Say, if we were still arguing about slavery, do you think Lincoln would still be expressing his view that he'd keep it if it would save the union?

He is an opportunist, pure and simple. You can tell that from the additional quote I posted. He changed positions mostly out of convenience.

Politicians are opportunists?! OH MY GOD, I NEVER KNEW!

Hey, in fact, I alluded to that in my first post. But that doesn't mean that one's seizing opportunities indicates one's change in stances aren't heartfelt. Nobody can say that except for the person who does the changing. You seem inclined to not give him any leeway out of your hatred for the man. I don't care about him, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't care whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. Helms and Thurmond are equally shameful, which is why I made a point of including the time they banded together on defending the CSA flag.

Helms, yes. Thurmond, I see some redemption in. I think he ended his days as a gentleman. Does that atone for all he did? No, but I'm not going to sit around and escorciate him for things he did decades ago and subsequently recanted.

Oh, I must be such a racist apologist now...

The KKK issue is nothing compared to the Civil Rights filibuster. He stood and spoke for fourteen hours straight.

In 1964. How many times do I have to say that I knew he was once a racist asshat? Jesus, I can't even tell what you're arguing.

The KKK issue alone is weak, yes, but "white ******" is not. There is NO reason ANYBODY should ever say something like that, and especially not a public figure on National TV, and even more so, not the Senator with the absolute worst record on racism.

And as I've stated, the "white ******" comment is totally not what you're saying it was. This has broached into the realm of dishonesty on your part.

Should he have said it? Of course not. It was absolutely a stupid thing to say. Byrd would agree that he shouldn't have said it: "The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society." But his intent wasn't racist, and he was quite profuse with the apologies. Let it go, man.

[SpencerH]

The confederate flag is used as a symbol by racists. That fact doesnt mean that the confederate flag is merely a racist symbol.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see how you could miss the point again. *sigh*

Byrd was saying that he did not think "******" specifically referred to black people, so when saying it's a behavioral issue, you logically can't think he's saying it's white people acting like black people. Duh.

What "behaviors" was he speaking of? Bad ones. And by using the word "******", what race did he associate them with?

So you omitted a later vote that shows a change in position to something you favor...because it would hurt your argument. Doesn't that tell you a little something about the stridency of your position here?

Hell no. He had a vote the exact opposite way on the issue two years ago. The best logical conclusion that can be inferred is that he caved due to party pressure.

Huh? Where the hell did you get this? Do you have some link that shows him saying such a thing??

The hate crime legislation. If you vote against including homosexuals as victims of hatecrimes, you're either denying that they are victims (more probable) or saying that they deserve it. (Less probable)

What ammendment are you talking about here?

You do realize he has voiced opposition to Bush's gay marriage ammendment proposal, yes?

The defense of marriage amendment that never really materialized. I didn't know that, though. However, he is against everything Bush does these days. That's, for the most part, why he's been voting better recently.

I think he's about run-of-the-mill, actually. And in many of his stances, I find him a lot more palatable than others.

That's pretty sad, really. I find him more palatable than Kennedy, Santorum, and a few others, but still...

Do you agree with the ACLU on everything? I don't even do that. And lots of Senators are anti-gay marriage. Is that something that's supposed to be news?

I certainly don't agree with the ACLU on everything, but you were touting his recent civil rights record in the other thread.

Politicians are opportunists?! OH MY GOD, I NEVER KNEW!

Hey, in fact, I alluded to that in my first post. But that doesn't mean that one's seizing opportunities indicates one's change in stances aren't heartfelt. Nobody can say that except for the person who does the changing. You seem inclined to not give him any leeway out of your hatred for the man. I don't care about him, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I would have given him the benefit of the doubt as well, if he hadn't been blabbering about ******s on TV and all.

Helms, yes. Thurmond, I see some redemption in. I think he ended his days as a gentleman. Does that atone for all he did? No, but I'm not going to sit around and escorciate him for things he did decades ago and subsequently recanted.

I think Thurmond ended his days as a senile skeleton who had no idea what he was actually voting for, quite frankly. That is what I thought was shameful, really. They propped up his corpse for two terms in order to keep a safe seat. He ran for the senate at the age of 93, for ****'s sake.


We're talking past each other a bit. The reason why I bring up his previous... errors in judgement... is to put this one in perspective.

And as I've stated, the "white ******" comment is totally not what you're saying it was. This has broached into the realm of dishonesty on your part.

Should he have said it? Of course not. It was absolutely a stupid thing to say. Byrd would agree that he shouldn't have said it: "The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society." But his intent wasn't racist, and he was quite profuse with the apologies. Let it go, man.

Damn right he shouldn't have said it. When a former KKK member who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for fourteen hours, spoke ill of Martin Luther King the year he was shot, attempted to block the appointment of two Black Supreme Court Justices, and banded together with two other racist Senators to defend the CSA flag says the word "******", should it be at all surprising that people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt this time?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The confederate flag is used as a symbol by racists. That fact doesnt mean that the confederate flag is merely a racist symbol.

What about the swastika?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What about the swastika?

Yea, that one makes them a little more uncomfortable, doesn't it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
This leads us to the 2001 "white ******" comment (one for which Byrd has apologized several times). The context is such that it is clear what Byrd is trying to say--completely ineptly--is that he meant the word "******" not to be racial, but behavioral. It was a stupid thing to say, but his intent was to claim it wasn't about race. I've heard this line of defense before, actually. It's pretty dumb, but Byrd certainly has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth.

So of course it'd be perfectly fine if Bush said "There are straight fags. I've seen a lot of straight fags in my time; I'm going to use the word."?

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What about the swastika?

Which is a religious symbol to many hindus.

[Drake Tungsten]

Buddhists too, dude...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jaguar
What "behaviors" was he speaking of? Bad ones. And by using the word "******", what race did he associate them with?

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.

Hell no. He had a vote the exact opposite way on the issue two years ago. The best logical conclusion that can be inferred is that he caved due to party pressure.

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.

The hate crime legislation. If you vote against including homosexuals as victims of hatecrimes, you're either denying that they are victims (more probable) or saying that they deserve it. (Less probable)

Ok, so we'll let DinoDoc and other conservatives on Apolyton know that their opposition to such legislation means they must believe one of the above to be the case. Wow, you're going to alienate the conservatives here real quick.

If you think real hard and maybe read up on the issue, you might see that some people have other reasons for their opposition to such laws.

That's pretty sad, really. I find him more palatable than Kennedy, Santorum, and a few others, but still...

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

I certainly don't agree with the ACLU on everything, but you were touting his recent civil rights record in the other thread.

"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...

I would have given him the benefit of the doubt as well, if he hadn't been blabbering about ******s on TV and all.

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

I think Thurmond ended his days as a senile skeleton who had no idea what he was actually voting for, quite frankly. That is what I thought was shameful, really. They propped up his corpse for two terms in order to keep a safe seat. He ran for the senate at the age of 93, for ****'s sake.

True in many aspects, but not at all relevant to this argument. I'll add that he was one of the only Republican senators who greeted Hillary Clinton with any degree of respect when she joined the senate. Unlike a Mississippi senator who hoped for lightning to strike her before she took her seat...

We're talking past each other a bit. The reason why I bring up his previous... errors in judgement... is to put this one in perspective.

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.

Damn right he shouldn't have said it. When a former KKK member who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for fourteen hours, spoke ill of Martin Luther King the year he was shot, attempted to block the appointment of two Black Supreme Court Justices, and banded together with two other racist Senators to defend the CSA flag says the word "******", should it be at all surprising that people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt this time?

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.

[MrFun]

geez . . . . .



I'm going to have to take some time to read and reread the longer posts in here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fool... just ignore them and move on.

[Boris Godunov]

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

Best advice of the evening!