Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
"After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."
I think it is pretty clear that, by stopping paying his dues and not working with them anymore, he stopped supporting them.
So he didn't "disavow" the Klan. Thank you for finally admitting that fact.
The best a reasonable person can get out of that quote is he was "indifferent"!
That is not even close to "disavow"! Particularly the "disavow" currently being demanded from Trump!
And Trump even used the word "disavow" when confronted by reporters BEFORE THE SILLY INTERVIEW!
"Debating"? More like attempting to modify what people say by modifying the meaning of their words.
"After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."
I think it is pretty clear that, by stopping paying his dues and not working with them anymore, he stopped supporting them.
It's pretty clear that your disingenuous rationalization isn't anywhere near the equivalent of the public "disavowal" or "rebuke" that has been demanded of Trump. Unlike Byrd, Trump's "interest" in the Klan was nil, until Duke made his public statement. It's clearly evident that a public statement by Trump that he isn't "interested" in the Klan will not suffice; since, the MSM talking heads are now demanding that Trump "disavow" Duke's support.
... the MSM talking heads are now demanding that Trump "disavow" Duke's support.
All this stupid shit began when the media LIED about ...
.. Duke "endorsing" Trump.
What they want Trump to do is spend all of his time denying the shit they create!
It's like they (the media) get their "ideas" from the folks on my ignore list ... with some others tossed in for good measure ..... and there is a common denominator ... which is "blogs"! People are actually beginning to believe the shit that is posted on blogs.....with the "acknowledgment" ... that "if he doesn't deny it, it must be true"!!! Hogwash....pun intended.
It's pretty clear that your disingenuous rationalization isn't anywhere near the equivalent of the public "disavowal" or "rebuke" that as has been demanded of Trump. Unlike Byrd, Trump's "interest" in the Klan was nil, until Duke made his public statement. It's clearly evident that a public statement by Trump that he isn't "interested" in the Klan will not suffice; since, the MSM talking heads are now demanding that Trump "disavow" Duke's support.
First, I couldn't care less what the public and the media is demanding of Trump. I'm not the public. I'm me. Making my arguments.
Second, your understanding of history is a lacking. Byrd was plagued by his connection to the KKK until the day he died and (obviously) even beyond. People like you are still desperately trying to tie him as strongly to it as Duke IS tied to his racist beliefs. To pretend that he was let off the hook simply for amending his ways does not, at all, reflect the recent history or even the present.
But my point is that equating Duke to Byrd holds no water, thus attempts to create some kind of hypocrisy on the part of democrats and the press, based on the differing treatment between the two, hold no water either.
Also, let's not pretend that Byrd's movement away from the Klan ends with what he said in 1952. He was still likely racist in the 60s when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act. However, by the end he had gotten a 100% NAACP rating, referred to the his joining of the Klan as his biggest mistake (and no, not just for political reasons), and said things like, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
All this stupid shit began when the media LIED about ...
.. Duke "endorsing" Trump.
What they want Trump to do is spend all of his time denying the shit they create!
It's like they (the media) get their "ideas" from the folks on my ignore list ... with some others tossed in for good measure ..... and there is a common denominator ... which is "blogs"! People are actually beginning to believe the shit that is posted on blogs.....with the "acknowledgment" ... that "if he doesn't deny it, it must be true"!!! Hogwash....pun intended.
You're right.
Quote:
“Voting for these people [Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz], voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage. I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.” — David Duke, on his radio program, Feb. 25, 2016 (WaPo)
Quote:
Question: “How do you feel about the recent endorsement from David Duke?”
Trump: “I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?” Donald Trump, at a news conference, Feb. 26, 2016.
(WaPo)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatfibo
First, I couldn't care less what the public and the media is demanding of Trump. I'm not the public. I'm me. Making my arguments. You wouldn't be posting about this story if you truly didn't care; so, stop lying.
Second, your understanding of history is a lacking. Byrd was plagued by his connection to the KKK until the day he died and (obviously) even beyond. This contrivance you mislabel as "history" is of your own devise. You never provided a historical -- real history -- citation dated before 1997 where Byrd disavowed the KKK for moral reasons. People like you are still desperately trying to tie him as strongly to it as Duke IS tied to his racist beliefs. You're desperately trying to deny history by fantasizing that Byrd's personal views on race changed when he quit paying dues to the KKK. To pretend that he was let off the hook simply for amending his ways does not, at all, reflect the recent history or even the present.
But my point is that equating Duke to Byrd holds no water, thus attempts to create some kind of hypocrisy on the part of democrats and the press, based on the differing treatment between the two, hold no water either. Your point ignores the historical fact that Byrd stood against the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s while you "pretend" Byrd "disavowed" such prejudices in the 1950s merely because he no longer sent dues to the KKK.
Also, let's not pretend that Byrd's movement away from the Klan ends with what he said in 1952. He was still likely racist in the 60s when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act. However, by the end he had gotten a 100% NAACP rating, referred to the his joining of the Klan as his biggest mistake (and no, not just for political reasons), and said things like, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." That was in 2005; not 1952. Nor was it 1965 or even in the year 2000.
He was still likely racist in the 60s when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Your point ignores the historical fact that Byrd stood against the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s while you "pretend" Byrd "disavowed" such prejudices in the 1950s merely because he no longer sent dues to the KKK.
Debating you is amazing. In the post you are responding to, I explicitly point out that he was probably racist when he filibustered the CRA, but you still, twice, no less, misrepresent my position by claiming that I said he "stopped being racist" in 50s.
The fact of the matter is that, like with most changes, it doesn't happen overnight but is an evolution. If you notice, in my last post, I kind of skipped over a bunch of years between 1964 and 1997 where much of his evolution probably took place. Even near the end he was still saying stupid shit like "white n***ers" (can I write that word here? Not quite sure of the rule). It's not like he ever became perfect.
The reality is that we are comparing a person who change their ways and became an ardent supporter of equality with someone who is currently, unabashedly racist. You can try to squirm and "quibble" about the actual dates of when it happened, or if it happened soon enough, or if it happened enough. . .but the reality is that we are talking about two entirely different people who, when embraced, had near opposite beliefs on the matter. You can nit-pick until the cows come home, but nothing is going to change that fact.
Debating you is amazing. In the post you are responding to, I explicitly point out that he was probably racist when he filibustered the CRA, but you still, twice, no less, misrepresent my position by claiming that I said he "stopped being racist" in 50s.
The fact of the matter is that, like with most changes, it doesn't happen overnight but is an evolution. If you notice, in my last post, I kind of skipped over a bunch of years between 1964 and 1997 where much of his evolution probably took place. Even near the end he was still saying stupid shit like "white n***ers" (can I write that word here? Not quite sure of the rule). It's not like he ever became perfect.
The reality is that we are comparing a person who change their ways and became an ardent supporter of equality with someone who is currently, unabashedly racist. You can try to squirm and "quibble" about the actual dates of when it happened, or if it happened soon enough, or if it happened enough. . .but the reality is that we are talking about two entirely different people who, when embraced, had near opposite beliefs on the matter. You can nit-pick until the cows come home, but nothing is going to change that fact.
Your POV only holds water if Byrd actually quit being a racist in the 1950s as you initially argued. Now that you have admitted that Byrd remained a racist -- just like Duke remained a racist -- and that you have found nothing dated before 1997 where Byrd disavows the KKK for moral, and not merely political, reasons, your opinion that Duke is somehow morally worse than Byrd is proven to be utterly false. Hence, if Trump is somehow held to be responsible for Duke's racism, Hildabeast is equally responsible for Byrd's racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
What's the well-dressed Confederate/Slavery/TRUMP apologist/defender wearing this year?
But you were always so fond of your faggot swastika flag, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
Debating you is amazing. In the post you are responding to, I explicitly point out that he was probably racist when he filibustered the CRA, but you still, twice, no less, misrepresent my position by claiming that I said he "stopped being racist" in 50s.
The fact of the matter is that, like with most changes, it doesn't happen overnight but is an evolution. If you notice, in my last post, I kind of skipped over a bunch of years between 1964 and 1997 where much of his evolution probably took place. Even near the end he was still saying stupid shit like "white n***ers" (can I write that word here? Not quite sure of the rule). It's not like he ever became perfect.
The reality is that we are comparing a person who change their ways and became an ardent supporter of equality with someone who is currently, unabashedly racist. You can try to squirm and "quibble" about the actual dates of when it happened, or if it happened soon enough, or if it happened enough. . .but the reality is that we are talking about two entirely different people who, when embraced, had near opposite beliefs on the matter. You can nit-pick until the cows come home, but nothing is going to change that fact.
I don't think we can ever agree on this. Byrd was a racist, but appeared to change his ways and was considered a defender of equality and an opponent of intolerance when embraced. Duke continues, to this day, to be part of racist groups and espouse racist beliefs.
It seems you insist that someone who did racist things, but changed themselves in meaningful ways, is equivalent to someone who continues to be unabashedly racist. There is no way you will ever convince me that this is a rational position, no matter how much tap dancing you do.
I don't think we can ever agree on this. Byrd was a racist, but appeared to change his ways and was considered a defender of equality and an opponent of intolerance when embraced. Duke continues, to this day, to be part of racist groups and espouse racist beliefs.
It seems you insist that someone who did racist things, but changed themselves in meaningful ways, is equivalent to someone who continues to be unabashedly racist. There is no way you will ever convince me that this is a rational position, no matter how much tap dancing you do.
You'd be the one tap dancing around the facts: 1) there's no indication that Byrd actually disavowed the KKK for moral reasons until very late (2005) in life; 2) Trump and Duke are not -- were never -- all "huggy-kissy" with one another the way Hildabeast was with Byrd; 3) Duke NEVER formally endorsed Trump despite media reports otherwise; 4) Trump is, and has been on record, disavowing the KKK before Tapper's BS question. Thus, you're a hypocrite when you give a pass to Hildabeast for openly embracing what you demand Trump -- to again -- disavow.
1) there's no indication that Byrd actually disavowed the KKK for moral reasons until very late (2005) in life;
So what? Because you can't pinpoint when, it doesn't count? This doesn't change the fact that Byrd was someone who changed their ways, Duke is not. Again, we are talking about embracing someone who was, at the time, a champion of tolerance and equality.
Quote:
2) Trump and Duke are not -- were never -- all "huggy-kissy" with one another the way Hildabeast was with Byrd;
Agreed. But I don't see the point. My issue, again, is not with Duke endorsing Trump, but with Trump's mishandling of the situation that make it appear that this is another situation that he just says whatever he thinks gives him the best chance of being elected. He likely "passed" on the question because he thought that it was the best answer to not scare off any voters (racists and non-racists alike), once he realized what a blunder that actually was, he made up some BS about not being able to hear the question properly. And people slurped it down and then started making all kinds of excuses in an attempt to make Trump not alone in.
Quote:
3) Duke NEVER formally endorsed Trump despite media reports otherwise;
This is a weak point. If you say that not voting for someone is "treason," you are endorsing them. Whether it is formal or not. Talk about "quibbling."
Quote:
4) Trump is, and has been on record, disavowing the KKK before Tapper's BS question.
This only further enforces my point. Why would he need to hedge to that question when asked by Tapper if he has already disavowed such groups? Pretending not to know who they are reeks of trying to take a "no position"
Quote:
Thus, you're a hypocrite when you give a pass to Hildabeast for openly embracing what you demand Trump -- to again -- disavow.
Nope. Clinton embraced someone who was, at the time, a champion of equal rights and tolerance, despite their checkered past. Duke cannot be considered anything but a racist.
