Can't we just celebrate his death without so much controversy?

:tro:

the moral of the story is that even racist's can change. party affiliation has nothing to do with it.

joey ignoring the argument and awarding trophy's is just precious though. you must be proud.

Oh you're right! My bad. Byrd would've got the same post from you if he was a republican. You're totally not a disingenuous twat!

Yeah I'm all about getting the trophy smiley. GFY twice.

i really don't think party affiliation matters. if there's ever a republican that admits past racism and demonstrates a change of heart the way byrd did, i'd feel the same.

i think the republicans on this board would like it to be about party affiliation. that let's them be resentful victims all over again. thus the studious ignoring of any argument that distinguishes byrd from an unrepentant racist. it's all about 1964 and nothing else.

and i wasn't targeting you with the trophy comment. that was all about joey's pretending my post in anyway reflected your 1 sentence analysis.

Oooook. When is the next bible study? We must forgive because Jesus forgave us and stuff.

Please save the Hallmark movie moments for a soap opera forum.



He was an old man when he stopped being a racist. Sure you can forgive him if you're naive enough to believe he changed. The truth is people don't really change and if they do "change" it's for selfish reasons.

your quote stops 42 years ago.

1969-2010 never happened and it's all about him being a democrat.

you got me.

first thing i'm reminded of when people say a democrat can change.......remember david duke? that guy ran as a conservative for governor of la. when his kkk and racist past was brought up, he said he'd changed. no one believed that either-so it goes across party lines.
as for nothing past 1969....as i said earlier, byrd voted against both thurgood marshall and clarence thomas for the supreme court. i'm pretty sure thomas was after 1969.

this was too:

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Byrd's use of the term "white nigger" created immediate controversy. When asked about it, Byrd responded,

“ I apologize for the characterization I used on this program ... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society ... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have(he may have??) offended people."
that was in 2001...

and then this, which i found just awful:
Byrd also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. "The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think," said Byrd, adding he came to realize that black people love their children as much as he does his. he had to come to that realization? what, did he think people that differed in color couldn't love? that's outrageous.

Most of his life he was a racist. Yeah I got you defending a complete d.ickhead. But just keep going because you're never wrong.

danny: unless it occurred in the last year, david duke has never publicly changed his views. he changed party affiliation and that's it.

coach: well done. you again deflected the argument. it's now about defending byrd and not responding to the ridiculous assertion that byrd got away with his pre-1967 views only because he's a democrat.

last word

no, duke was back about 18 years ago...lol last i heard, he got busted for illegal use of campaign funds and spent time in jail.
point is, no one believed he changed-and i don't believe byrd changed either-except publically. it's kind of like when mel gibson got pulled over that night when he was drunk, and started on his anti-semitic rant. he's always felt that way, but alcohol loosened his tongue. it's not as tho he changed his feelings just cause he had a few.
it was politically expedient for byrd to 'change'...now, i didn't know the man personally, but i know how resistant humans are to change. i also know that the private persona can be far different from the public one. he's a politician, and was a good one, which is why he stayed so long. but his actions, and his words, showed that maybe he wasn't as changed as he portrayed himself.

That's true. O.K. Lets not kid ourselves here. You can't compare someone who votes for helping poor Blacks to someone who doesn't vote to help poor Blacks. He voted to help Black people in this country. Fact is he helped the same people he is accused of hating. Democrats do take this into account. Being a modern-era Democrat is not exactly what most present-day haters of Black People would probably choose to be. It's not like he got elected to a National Office. West Virginians made the choice (overwhelmingly by the way) to keep him their Senator. I would never have done that.

I think the one big exception is views about people can change. I actually think (for instance) Milton Bradley is not the Devil he is painted to be. I think he has a personality disorder of some type. It's a problem. I do not think he's a bad person. I don't think most people that hate him would feel that way if they new him. By the way, there are a ton of people (that you like right now) that you would dislike if you got to know them... Really.

Talk about trying to re-write history. "A fleeting association?" give me a f'n break.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...t_elected.html