Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, David Duke was actually elected as a Republican, whether or not he was rejected in some quarters by the GOP.
I have thought long on it and the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will abide racism. That is one reason why conservatives are always decrying 'political correctness'. Not exactly being racist themselves, the presence of racism just is not a big deal for them -- they give lip service to inclusion.
They try to maintain they were never for Jim Crow laws but none of them appeared on the picket lines. (Name a conservative who was arrested in a civil rights demonstration! Not Charlton Heston -- he was liberal then.) They said they were not racists but opposed the civil rights law and the voting rights act. They say they were not for apartheid but could not bring themselves to boycott South Africa.
And then they say opposition to the president is political, but they tolerate racial invective as to the president. Basically, conservatives have a benign indifference to some acts which should be offensive to all people, particularly minority group members. Thus we see all the Republican presidents since Nixon (except Ford) being criticized for race-baiting in their campaigns.
Conservatives talk that 'big tent' stuff but do not call out their own about racism and really are very content with low minority numbers amongst them.
Why wasn't Robert Byrd ever pushed out by the progressive and tolerant Democrat party for his membership in the KKK. Or did his views evolve?
In the 40s, Senator Byrd said
I will concede that in 2005 he said
An apology, but I'm not sure he is fit to serve office because of his past affiliations (sort of like CEOs of web browsers).
Maybe Democrats can explain this? Thanks!
Why is explanation necessary? Byrd had a change of heart and abandoned his racism.
So did George Wallace and scores of others who were less prominent.
People can realize the errors of their ways. Byrd, at least, manned up and owned his errors, and was not afraid to openly apologize over and over for them. What more could he, or Wallace do?
Moreover, Byrd isn't fit to serve in his office or anywhere else anymore. He died 4 years ago at age 92.
Well when he was alive, not much was said about him. Same goes with Kennedy, who was known as a womanizer and killed a woman. Yet he was seen as a hero for his charades he put on in public. Last time I checked, being a womanizer and killing someone is worse than what this NBA owner said. Yet quite a difference in how you treat this guy verse Kennedy for instance.
The point is, time after time there is countless examples of hypocrisy.
Of course. Past history is always full of hypocrisy by the shovel full in all political issues. What's the point? That somehow we always elect only those who are as pure as the driven snow?
Where is the relevance in comparing someone who is currently living to another who is long dead?
Answer: There is no relevance.
There are dozens of threads by conservatives here attacking Robert Byrd for racism--or, to be more accurate, attacking the Democratic Party many years after he repented and changed his racist ways for ever having anything to do with him.
There is nothing to make the topic of this thread relevant to anything happening today. Nothing, that is, but the desire of one conservative to deflect attention from this week's crop of exposed conservative racists.
Very transparent, Hokie.
Exactly - a feeble diversionary attempt that was quickly seen for what it is.
I have thought long on it and the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will abide racism. That is one reason why conservatives are always decrying 'political correctness'. Not exactly being racist themselves, the presence of racism just is not a big deal for them -- they give lip service to inclusion.
They try to maintain they were never for Jim Crow laws but none of them appeared on the picket lines.
You do realize that we still have defacto Jim Crow laws courtesy of Democrats/liberals who adamantly oppose and continually refuse to allow school vouchers, right? Democrats trap disproportionately more minorities in abysmally performing public schools.
Black parents on vouchers:
Quote:
"Pro-voucher voters among racial minorities overwhelmingly support Barack Obama, but they are baffled by the Democratic nominee's opposition to vouchers. They also say they are frustrated that Democratic leaders appear to be more concerned about keeping the peace with teachers unions -- which adamantly oppose vouchers -- than about finding alternatives that could advance desperately needed education reforms for minority students.
...Public opinion polls also show solid support for school vouchers among minority parents. Sixty-five percent of adult African-Americans and 63 percent of adult Hispanics favor the use of vouchers, according to a national survey conducted earlier this year under the auspices of the journal Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University. In the survey, more than half of minority adults gave higher marks to their local police than their public schools.
"There is no doubt that on this issue, ...Obama has it wrong," Martin wrote."
You do realize that we still have defacto Jim Crow laws courtesy of Democrats/liberals who adamantly oppose and continually refuse to allow school vouchers, right?
You're just wrong there. Would you equate an inability to buy a house anywhere but in a segregated neighborhood with the many options in education, both public and private? There is an obvious difference between aggravated, intentional racial discrimination and school funding issues.
Why wasn't Robert Byrd ever pushed out by the progressive and tolerant Democrat party for his membership in the KKK. Or did his views evolve?
I think that question has been adequately answered by others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie
Asks "Did his views evolve?"... posts evolved view.
"It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career and reputation."
"My only explanation for the entire episode is that I was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision -- a jejune and immature outlook -- seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions,"
James Tolbert, president of the West Virginia chapter of the NAACP and an occasional critic of the senator, said Byrd transcended his past by gradually embracing more enlightened social views and by simply owning up to his past mistakes. "He doesn't try to lie his way out of things," Tolbert said. "If he's wrong, he'll say he's wrong."
I just don't remember any liberal outrage at the time.
How old were you in 1958, when the revelation first arose and Byrd was urged by the Democratic Party to drop out of the race? How old were you in 1964?
Well seeing neither you nor I were on this site during the time he was in office, I am not surprised you don't remember any liberal outrage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
