Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/30/10 03:24 AM, kojama wrote: A large majority of Congress in Washington line their pockets with tax money, or money given to them from lobbyists. Bryd at least used it to help his state. Senators are elected to give their state a voice. That's what he did. Fits the job description.

"He was a true servant of the people of West Virginia, and the general population of the country."

That's what you said he was. But now we're back to just defining his job as being a servant of the people of West Virginia? Which is it guy?

At 6/29/10 10:47 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I believe in the possibility myself. My problem with THIS situation is nobody has presented any EVIDENCE that he was no longer a racist other then "cause he said so" and "cause he said so" is not good enough for me when the record as presented thus far doesn't show any serious back turn and renunciation.

Good point. However, many men Byrd's age had racist pasts. It was apart of America, it's sad to say, but we were probably the last major country in the world in the early to mid 20th century that still had segregationist views. (I'm not counting South Africa due to the fact that even to this day its a struggling country. America almost from the onset until the civil war was a very stable country.)

For example: After 9/11 he used his position as chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee to secure funds for the victims and for the city of New York itself.

This doesn't really prove anything again because 9/11 is one of those events where if you care to be re-elected, you're going to HAVE to come down on the side of something like that. I think anyone in that position is going to secure funds for the victims and the city. Of course they're going to do that so to me it's kind of a no brainer that while positive, isn't really indicitive of the specific issue at hand, whether or not he was still racist. Because even though he knew he'd be helping blacks and other minorities, he could easily justify it based on what it would do to help whites, and it would keep him in office and able to continue to help whites.

I'm going out on a limb, but look at Hillary Clinton's personal statement on Byrd's passing. It seems his efforts (Remember until the mid 2000's he was Washington's money man.) contributed more greatly than other senators with lesser resources.

Some called him the King of Pork, I disagree. Pork is wasted money, he never made the rich richer, nor did he use it for personal gain. He was a true servant of the people of West Virginia, and the general population of the country.

You're not using the proper definition of "pork", it isn't just wasteful spending and wasteful in the ways you pointed out. Pork is UNNECESSARY or inappropriate spending. Pork can be as simple as say, tacking onto the healthcare bill that passed a rider whereby Virginia gets extra funding for a state park he happens to be fond of. It's sometimes as simple as putting your own district ahead of the country.

I cant see anything unnecessary about giving much needed funding to one of the nation's poorest states. If it was giving California (Whose economy is larger than most nations.) to line the streets of LA in gold. Or Alaska doing another road and bridge to no wear, then maybe I would cry foul. But those funds were to give us a better infrastructure, increased educational opportunites and others, I really don't see whats so unnecessary about it.

How do you know that's the way in which it was meant? Also he could have easily chosen a less inflammatory word. He could have said "socially disadvantaged" "poor and uneducated" hell he could have just sat there and said "lazy mother fuckers" but no, he chose a word that has a SPECIFIC definition to the majority of persons in this country, and that specific definition the majority understands is as a slur against blacks. It's especially damning when it comes from the mouth of a known Klansman.

But the possibilities are still there. Byrd was known for his use of rather archaic (Even for a man of his age.) language and terms. Another term he used quite often was "Gay" in its original meaning. That word is also held with somewhat negative connotations also. However if an elderly person states that he/she is gay? Should we condemn them as homosexual?

Thanks for being a worthy debate opponent. I'm truly glad this topic didn't just become a troll magnet.

At 6/30/10 03:30 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/30/10 03:24 AM, kojama wrote: A large majority of Congress in Washington line their pockets with tax money, or money given to them from lobbyists. Bryd at least used it to help his state. Senators are elected to give their state a voice. That's what he did. Fits the job description.

"He was a true servant of the people of West Virginia, and the general population of the country."

That's what you said he was. But now we're back to just defining his job as being a servant of the people of West Virginia? Which is it guy?

Let me rephrase it. A senator is a servant to both the constitution and to his home state first. Or at least thats how I view it. You may have a different definition. Secondly, he serves the national as a whole in conjunction with the rest of the Senate and House.

At 6/30/10 03:38 AM, kojama wrote: Good point. However, many men Byrd's age had racist pasts. It was apart of America, it's sad to say, but we were probably the last major country in the world in the early to mid 20th century that still had segregationist views. (I'm not counting South Africa due to the fact that even to this day its a struggling country. America almost from the onset until the civil war was a very stable country.)

There's a difference between living in a place with a racist viewpoint, and being very active in the Klan. My grandfather had a somewhat racist viewpoint based on his upbringing and his times, but was never a Klansman. That is why this argument fails. It's not that he "had a racist viewpoint like many people" it's that he was part of a racist group that has in the past and even at the time he was a member, engaged in murder and terrorist actions in the pursuit of it's aims. When you're in a group like the Klan, you are in no way "passively racist" you are quite active and have to work a lot harder if you want to prove that in your past.

I'm going out on a limb, but look at Hillary Clinton's personal statement on Byrd's passing. It seems his efforts (Remember until the mid 2000's he was Washington's money man.) contributed more greatly than other senators with lesser resources.

Hillary Clinton...yes, there's a paragon of honesty. Don't forget it was her campaign that started the whole "Obama is a Muslim" nonsense we're still dealing with today, and released that photo that "proves" it. Not to mention once again it's a democrat talking about a democrat. Also this has NOTHING to do with whether or not he was still a racist. I don't see where anything you're using in this argument here would prove he wasn't a racist.

I cant see anything unnecessary about giving much needed funding to one of the nation's poorest states. If it was giving California (Whose economy is larger than most nations.) to line the streets of LA in gold. Or Alaska doing another road and bridge to no wear, then maybe I would cry foul. But those funds were to give us a better infrastructure, increased educational opportunites and others, I really don't see whats so unnecessary about it.

I wasn't calling the spending unnecessary, I was saying you weren't really giving a good definition of "pork" and since you didn't understand what "pork" is...you're not in a position to decide what kind of spending is "pork" and what's not.

But the possibilities are still there.

But they're unproven. The only thing that is proven is he was a very committed racist at one time. There hasn't been solid proof given other then his word that he renounced it.

Byrd was known for his use of rather archaic (Even for a man of his age.) language and terms. Another term he used quite often was "Gay" in its original meaning. That word is also held with somewhat negative connotations also. However if an elderly person states that he/she is gay? Should we condemn them as homosexual?

Nope, because gay very obviously has that second meaning and that second meaning is still valid and known to a large majority of the public. I can't believe we're actually playing the "which word is worse?" game here. It's patently obvious that gay has a historically better meaning, and has only recently been used as a slur, vs. the n word which is universally recognized as a slur and always has been. There were so many better words he could have used, but he decided to use the one who's first and common definitions are as a slur against a certain race. Seems a bit telling to me.

Thanks for being a worthy debate opponent. I'm truly glad this topic didn't just become a troll magnet.

I don't know we have that many trolls to make it any topic in this section a "troll magnet" that's why I like this forum.

At 6/30/10 03:11 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also this has NOTHING to do with whether or not he was still a racist. I don't see where anything you're using in this argument here would prove he wasn't a racist.

How 'bout dis:

The NAACP, an organization famous for being angry at the government for being too racist all the time, frequently gave Byrd high "approval" ratings for his voting record (i.e. for voting in a way they agreed with on various race-related bills), including a 100% rating in 2003-2004.

It could be argued that he was still a sneaky racist underneath all that, but practically speaking he wasn't doing a very good job of racism with his political power, in which case it'd basically be a moot point.

At 6/30/10 04:10 PM, Elfer wrote: How 'bout dis:

Now THAT is good evidence.

At 6/30/10 04:10 PM, Elfer wrote:

How 'bout dis:

The NAACP, an organization famous for being angry at the government for being too racist all the time, frequently gave Byrd high "approval" ratings for his voting record (i.e. for voting in a way they agreed with on various race-related bills), including a 100% rating in 2003-2004.

That's very compelling evidence. The NAACP are as infamous for (supposedly) being Black Panthers in suits as Byrd was for being (supposedly) racist in his later life. Maybe the question is instead of him being a racist (We all know he was a racist in his early life.) is was he that way in his later life? And did he more than make up for it?