CDZ People have short memories

[320 Years of History]

320:
Is this statement really 100% accurate.

"African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do."


On the surface, this may seem accurate, but why? Do African-Americans have a higher crime rate within their population or not? What are the reasons for longer sentences? Is it because they cannot as easily afford good attorneys. Is it because they have longer records and thus harsher sentences. Is it because of white privilege?

Click on the link and see. Upon clicking you'll find the full story behind why Politifact rated it as true.

I don't see "why" it's true as having anything to do with "whether" it's true.

 

[JoeMoma]

320:
Is this statement really 100% accurate.

"African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do."


On the surface, this may seem accurate, but why? Do African-Americans have a higher crime rate within their population or not? What are the reasons for longer sentences? Is it because they cannot as easily afford good attorneys. Is it because they have longer records and thus harsher sentences. Is it because of white privilege?

Click on the link and see. Upon clicking you'll find the full story behind why Politifact rated it as true.

I don't see "why" it's true as having anything to do with "whether" it's true.

African-Americans are more likely to be NBA players than whites. Does this mean that there is anything unjust about the way NBA players are selected?


Clinton is using the fact that there is a higher incarceration rate among blacks to pander to the black population by saying that it represents some type of social injustice. One of the many things stated at the political fact link was that blacks tend to sell drugs to people they don’t know more often than whites. Thus whites that sale drugs are at lower risk of being arrested than blacks. While it may be true that African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do, this in and of itself isn't necessary a problem with our justice system, just like there being a higher percentage of the African American population playing in the NBA isn't necessary because the NBA is unjust in it's hiring practices.

I do accept that our justice system has it's problems. But I also accept that many black communities have social problems that put their populations at higher risk of being arrested for crimes.

 

[320 Years of History]

320:
Is this statement really 100% accurate.

"African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do."


On the surface, this may seem accurate, but why? Do African-Americans have a higher crime rate within their population or not? What are the reasons for longer sentences? Is it because they cannot as easily afford good attorneys. Is it because they have longer records and thus harsher sentences. Is it because of white privilege?

Click on the link and see. Upon clicking you'll find the full story behind why Politifact rated it as true.

I don't see "why" it's true as having anything to do with "whether" it's true.

African-Americans are more likely to be NBA players than whites. Does this mean that there is anything unjust about the way NBA players are selected?


Clinton is using the fact that there is a higher incarceration rate among blacks to pander to the black population by saying that it represents some type of social injustice. One of the many things stated at the political fact link was that blacks tend to sell drugs to people they don’t know more often than whites. Thus whites that sale drugs are at lower risk of being arrested than blacks. While it may be true that African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do, this in and of itself isn't necessary a problem with our justice system, just like there being a higher percentage of the African American population playing in the NBA isn't necessary because the NBA is unjust in it's hiring practices.

I do accept that our justice system has it's problems. But I also accept that many black communities have social problems that put their populations at higher risk of being arrested for crimes.

Red:
I don't, in the context of assessing the truth of a statement, care whether there is something just or unjust about the fact that blacks are more likely to be NBA players than whites. Square one for me is whether it's true. Once I've determined that it is true, and to go farther it must be found true, then I can worry about whether there's any injustice in play.

Blue:
That may be; it's plausible that she did say it as a way to curry favor among black voters. Again, first and foremost is whether the statement is or is not accurate. It is accurate. The "whys and wherefores" are separate matters from whether the statement is factually correct.

Other:
Don't lose sight of the point I was making in post #19 and please don't try to redirect the topic to something other than that about which you specifically asked in post #20, which had to do with the extent to which her statement is accurate.

Post #19 Key Points:

• The matter of her emails is one for which the accuracy of her statements remains even today undetermined. Because her statement's accuracy has yet to be definitively confirmed or refuted, I withhold judgement.
• Given, in comparison with Trump, her greater frequency of telling the truth, I find Mrs. Clinton, more so than Trump, deserving of the benefit of the doubt than I do Trump.
• Given, in comparison with Trump, weightier subject matter on which Mrs. Clinton has made 100% truthful statements, I find Mrs. Clinton, more so than Trump, to be more deserving of the benefit of the doubt when she says "something" about "something that's important" and I don't, for whatever reason, know beyond a shadow of doubt that is is true.

I find it hard to imagine any reasonable person would not attempt to be equally fair. Indeed, I'd say exactly the same things of Mssrs. Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and a host of other Republicans. For me, it's not a partisan matter, however. One either tells the truth a lot or one does not; one either tells the truth more often than another individual, or one does not. Quite simply, Mrs. Clinton tells the truth more often than Trump. Period.
​

I don't know about you, but for me, the truth and why something is the truth are two different things.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am going to change gears here. First, I am neither pro Trump nor pro Hillary. I do not trust either of them. As far as which is more dangerous, I don't believe comparing their honesty rates through PoliticFact is the way to go. Once the dishonesty score gets very high, the actual score doesn't matter any more, they are both loose with the facts at times. That being said, if I want to tell a whopper of a lie, I am going to surround that lie with cherry picked facts woven together in a dishonest way to support that lie.

One thing I find scary about Trump is that he is an unknown. I don't know how he will govern if he wins the office. Hillary, on the other hand, would be more likely to keep the status quo. Of course much of Trump's support comes from people that are feed up with the status quo from both Democrats and Republican. To those people I say be careful for what you wish.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

320:
Is this statement really 100% accurate.

"African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do."


On the surface, this may seem accurate, but why? Do African-Americans have a higher crime rate within their population or not? What are the reasons for longer sentences? Is it because they cannot as easily afford good attorneys. Is it because they have longer records and thus harsher sentences. Is it because of white privilege?

Cultural attitudes towards lawfulness, behavior towards police and judges, lack of concern for others -- the list can go on and on by way of explanation. Those who assume racism are not really interested in actual explanations, however, because they have an agendas to push.

On an intuitive level, people should know that if they are stopped by police that belligerent behavior will be more likely to result in a ticket or apprehension than respectful. When you have an entire subculture running around with such an enormous chip on their shoulder that it acts as one, giant oppositional defiant disorder, it's pretty easy to understand the results.

Nobody ever seems to ask why it is that people from India or Vietnam can come here dirt poor, yet through hard work and high regard for education manage to elevate their lives and those for their children, yet the black population, despite every possible advantage given to them through affirmative action and hiring quotas have not done so.

At some point, when are people going to stop blaming others and start taking responsibility, themselves?

 

[320 Years of History]

320:
Is this statement really 100% accurate.

"African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do."


On the surface, this may seem accurate, but why? Do African-Americans have a higher crime rate within their population or not? What are the reasons for longer sentences? Is it because they cannot as easily afford good attorneys. Is it because they have longer records and thus harsher sentences. Is it because of white privilege?

Cultural attitudes towards lawfulness, behavior towards police and judges, lack of concern for others -- the list can go on and on by way of explanation. Those who assume racism are not really interested in actual explanations, however, because they have an agendas to push.

On an intuitive level, people should know that if they are stopped by police that belligerent behavior will be more likely to result in a ticket or apprehension than respectful. When you have an entire subculture running around with such an enormous chip on their shoulder that it acts as one, giant oppositional defiant disorder, it's pretty easy to understand the results.

Nobody ever seems to ask why it is that people from India or Vietnam can come here dirt poor, yet through hard work and high regard for education manage to elevate their lives and those for their children, yet the black population, despite every possible advantage given to them through affirmative action and hiring quotas have not done so.

At some point, when are people going to stop blaming others and start taking responsibility, themselves?

Red:
Actually, it's not a matter of nobody asking that question for multiple people and groups have:

• Mary C. Waters, Philip Kasinitz, and Asad L. Asad in "Immigrants and African Americans" asked that question.
• In "Ethnic and Racial Disparities in Education: Psychology’s Contributions to Understanding and Reducing Disparities," Stephen M. Quintana, A. Wade Boykin, Andrew Fuligni, Sandra Graham, Samuel Ortiz, and Frank C. Worrell asked that question with regard to educational matters specifically.
• In "Culture and Asian-White Achievement Difference," Airan Liu and Yu Xie explore why it is that Asian American immigrants, as a class, tend to surpass white Americans.

Read their papers and you'll know what they found as answers to that question and related ones. You'll also find in their cited references additional research on the matter as it pertains to both educational and professional achievement. So you see, there's actually, no shortage of folks who've examined what seems to you as though nobody has.

Might it seem as though nobody has asked those questions because the people who did haven't prostrated themselves at your feet and as well laid their research there? If you take to heart the message in my signature quote, perhaps going forward you'll find out there is much that isn't quite as it seems to you right now.

 

[jwoodie]

I suspect that most of the folks on this site never saw this advertisement when it first aired.



The ad could very well be aired today with regard to Trump.

Note:
The themes of this thread are:

• how history repeats itself

Please stay on and address the topic and it's themes....not things that are only obliquely related to the video, it's central theme or even its tacit themes.

Your caveats seem to belie a fear of contradiction, as does your use of a video to make your point. I only tuned in because I thought you were airing the infamous playground/nuclear bomb ad, which helped prevent that warmonger Goldwater from sacrificing a generation of young men in the jungles of Viet Nam. Oh wait...

I guess some people do have short memories.

 

[Holos]

I am going to change gears here. First, I am neither pro Trump nor pro Hillary. I do not trust either of them. As far as which is more dangerous, I don't believe comparing their honesty rates through PoliticFact is the way to go. Once the dishonesty score gets very high, the actual score doesn't matter any more, they are both loose with the facts at times. That being said, if I want to tell a whopper of a lie, I am going to surround that lie with cherry picked facts woven together in a dishonest way to support that lie.

One thing I find scary about Trump is that he is an unknown. I don't know how he will govern if he wins the office. Hillary, on the other hand, would be more likely to keep the status quo. Of course much of Trump's support comes from people that are feed up with the status quo from both Democrats and Republican. To those people I say be careful for what you wish.

Is anyone supposed to trust you with that kind of discourse? Should anyone even pay attention to your implicit request, obviously creasing your own mistrusted perceptions to the mistrust of people that are not even truly there with you but that in reality have devoted their lives and careers to serve the entire nation?

Wherefrom do you assume danger from politicians?

 

[2aguy]

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

 

[OldLady]

If he is danger

We will have an election in November, and voters should vote for the person who they believe will make the best president regardless of party. There will be many people running for president, but for most the choice will be between the republican or the democrat nominee. I am no fan of Mr. Trump; however, is he more dangerous than Mrs. Clinton?

" I am no fan of Mr. Trump; however, is he more dangerous than Mrs. Clinton?"
Yes. Hillary is the conservative choice. A completely co-opted political animal, beholden to everyone in the power establishment. Trump is the equivalent of kicking over the table, cause the other guys are holding all the aces. Not necessarily a bad strategy, but the results are predictably chaotic, and the aftermath is completely unpredictable.

Washington has a systemic cancer, and you want to send them Trump? Why? What do you think will happen once he get there? He's offered no specifics whatsoever. Do you imagine he'll get a Trump-friendly congress? What positive changes do you imagine he'll bring, and how do you think he will accomplish them?

if he is dangerous, then we do not want a Trump friendly congress. I will probably vote 3rd party. Since I live in a very red state, Trump if nominated will probably win my states electoral votes regardless of my one little vote.

Never forget the Florida recount. Sometimes one little vote matters, so choose as if the fate of the free world were in your hands.

 

[OldLady]

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

I think Germany left Switzerland alone because the Swiss had the Germans' money in their banks. There was a whole lot of hand shaking between Nazi's and Swiss bankers in those days. That is not an insult to the Swiss, mind you--sometimes getting an enemy by the wallet works better than any number of bullets.

 

[320 Years of History]

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

I think Germany left Switzerland alone because the Swiss had the Germans' money in their banks. There was a whole lot of hand shaking between Nazi's and Swiss bankers in those days. That is not an insult to the Swiss, mind you--sometimes getting an enemy by the wallet works better than any number of bullets.

Red:
Sadly, yes.

 

[2aguy]

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

I think Germany left Switzerland alone because the Swiss had the Germans' money in their banks. There was a whole lot of hand shaking between Nazi's and Swiss bankers in those days. That is not an insult to the Swiss, mind you--sometimes getting an enemy by the wallet works better than any number of bullets.

Yeah...I have heard that excuse before.......do you really think that hitler wouldn't have taken over the Swiss banks after he invaded and managed his own money? When he took over every other country in Europe and controlled their banks? From the link I have hitler hated the Swiss....but their armed civilians worried his military leaders to the point it wasn't worth it to invade them....they invaded everyone else, with disarmed populations...but not the Swiss......

 

[2aguy]

If he is danger

We will have an election in November, and voters should vote for the person who they believe will make the best president regardless of party. There will be many people running for president, but for most the choice will be between the republican or the democrat nominee. I am no fan of Mr. Trump; however, is he more dangerous than Mrs. Clinton?

" I am no fan of Mr. Trump; however, is he more dangerous than Mrs. Clinton?"
Yes. Hillary is the conservative choice. A completely co-opted political animal, beholden to everyone in the power establishment. Trump is the equivalent of kicking over the table, cause the other guys are holding all the aces. Not necessarily a bad strategy, but the results are predictably chaotic, and the aftermath is completely unpredictable.

Washington has a systemic cancer, and you want to send them Trump? Why? What do you think will happen once he get there? He's offered no specifics whatsoever. Do you imagine he'll get a Trump-friendly congress? What positive changes do you imagine he'll bring, and how do you think he will accomplish them?

if he is dangerous, then we do not want a Trump friendly congress. I will probably vote 3rd party. Since I live in a very red state, Trump if nominated will probably win my states electoral votes regardless of my one little vote.

Never forget the Florida recount. Sometimes one little vote matters, so choose as if the fate of the free world were in your hands.

You do realize that when al gore was trying to steal the Florida election.....he wouldn't have had to if he had just won his home state...or even clinton's home state......

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I suspect that most of the folks on this site never saw this advertisement when it first aired.



The ad could very well be aired today with regard to Trump.

Damn! This should've been played during Bill Cosby Clinton campaign, then we wouldn't have put a misogynist rapist in the White House along with Senator Byrd as well as the democrats who voted against Civil Rights:

Thanks for posting this.

You'd be amazed at how many brainless RWNJs don't realize that the Dems used to be the conservative, racist party.

But hey, not to worry. Only an idiot wouldn't know the Repubs are now the party of the kkk.

If your Uncle Bubba is too damn dumb to Get It, just have him check out the really slimy white supremacist human garbage who endorse RW candidates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If he is danger

We will have an election in November, and voters should vote for the person who they believe will make the best president regardless of party. There will be many people running for president, but for most the choice will be between the republican or the democrat nominee. I am no fan of Mr. Trump; however, is he more dangerous than Mrs. Clinton?

" I am no fan of Mr. Trump; however, is he more dangerous than Mrs. Clinton?"
Yes. Hillary is the conservative choice. A completely co-opted political animal, beholden to everyone in the power establishment. Trump is the equivalent of kicking over the table, cause the other guys are holding all the aces. Not necessarily a bad strategy, but the results are predictably chaotic, and the aftermath is completely unpredictable.

Washington has a systemic cancer, and you want to send them Trump? Why? What do you think will happen once he get there? He's offered no specifics whatsoever. Do you imagine he'll get a Trump-friendly congress? What positive changes do you imagine he'll bring, and how do you think he will accomplish them?

if he is dangerous, then we do not want a Trump friendly congress. I will probably vote 3rd party. Since I live in a very red state, Trump if nominated will probably win my states electoral votes regardless of my one little vote.

Never forget the Florida recount. Sometimes one little vote matters, so choose as if the fate of the free world were in your hands.

And this year, poll workers actually hid ballots in a closet.

Apparently, Floridians all have 8 fingers on each hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

I suspect that most of the folks on this site never saw this advertisement when it first aired.



The ad could very well be aired today with regard to Trump.

Damn! This should've been played during Bill Cosby Clinton campaign, then we wouldn't have put a misogynist rapist in the White House along with Senator Byrd as well as the democrats who voted against Civil Rights:

Thanks for posting this.

You'd be amazed at how many brainless RWNJs don't realize that the Dems used to be the conservative, racist party.

But hey, not to worry. Only an idiot wouldn't know the Repubs are now the party of the kkk.

If your Uncle Bubba is too damn dumb to Get It, just have him check out the really slimy white supremacist human garbage who endorse RW candidates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the left in this country keeps trying to use "Conservative" to wrap up modern American conservatives in the racism that is the core of the democrat party. The democrats in the South, who owned the slaves and used the kkk to attack Republicans and freed slaves and later enacted jim crow laws, and used murder and intimidation to keep blacks from voting...were trying to "conserve" their power over blacks. The Republcans...were trying to "conserve" the founding principals of the country...that all men are created equal...and to "conserve" the founding principals they fought democrats.......

 

[OldLady]

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

I think Germany left Switzerland alone because the Swiss had the Germans' money in their banks. There was a whole lot of hand shaking between Nazi's and Swiss bankers in those days. That is not an insult to the Swiss, mind you--sometimes getting an enemy by the wallet works better than any number of bullets.

Yeah...I have heard that excuse before.......do you really think that hitler wouldn't have taken over the Swiss banks after he invaded and managed his own money? When he took over every other country in Europe and controlled their banks? From the link I have hitler hated the Swiss....but their armed civilians worried his military leaders to the point it wasn't worth it to invade them....they invaded everyone else, with disarmed populations...but not the Swiss......

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

I think Germany left Switzerland alone because the Swiss had the Germans' money in their banks. There was a whole lot of hand shaking between Nazi's and Swiss bankers in those days. That is not an insult to the Swiss, mind you--sometimes getting an enemy by the wallet works better than any number of bullets.

Yeah...I have heard that excuse before.......do you really think that hitler wouldn't have taken over the Swiss banks after he invaded and managed his own money? When he took over every other country in Europe and controlled their banks? From the link I have hitler hated the Swiss....but their armed civilians worried his military leaders to the point it wasn't worth it to invade them....they invaded everyone else, with disarmed populations...but not the Swiss......

EXCUSE? More a statement of fact. Okay, you've got a source that says the Nazi's were worried about gun carrying civilians. I tend to question that?

 

[320 Years of History]

I suspect that most of the folks on this site never saw this advertisement when it first aired.



The ad could very well be aired today with regard to Trump.

Damn! This should've been played during Bill Cosby Clinton campaign, then we wouldn't have put a misogynist rapist in the White House along with Senator Byrd as well as the democrats who voted against Civil Rights:

While I agree with your remarks about the video in the OP, I also think you've unfairly presented Byrd. There's no denying the man founded a KKK chapter in WVa in the 1940s; however, the man later came to rue his association with that group, saying, "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." Moreover, the NAACP of him said:

• Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP President and CEO -- "Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation. Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country."
  
• Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy -- "Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation."

The man didn't become the most liberal of Democrats in the Senate, but he did express and make amends for the social/racial intolerance he helped advocate, or at the very least didn't decry, when he was in his early 20s. If you're over 40 or so, you'll understand why it's hardly fair to hold against one the mistakes they made in that life stage, most especially if they have made recompense and shown contrition (in their words and deeds) for it over the larger share of a 90+ year lifespan.

That is exactly what Robert Byrd did and your meme does not give credit for it; indeed it completely ignores that he did. For you to present him as you have in the meme above is mischaracterization of the totality of his life and accomplishments. It is just another instance of faulty composition which has been among Trump's stocks in trade for a large share of his remarks.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud your support for civil rights, but supporting the same thing I do in a callous way is not helpful. I'm just saying that using the same forms of irrational expression to amplify a point is no different than what Trump does. I take exception with Trump not because he's a Republican or because I disagree with some of his positions, but rather because he puts neither intellectual rigor nor candor into his remarks. I can't abide installing as President someone who is less that clear and honest, someone who, quite simply, has given me ample evidence that I cannot rely on what they say being a completely accurate representation of reality.

 

[2aguy]

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

I think Germany left Switzerland alone because the Swiss had the Germans' money in their banks. There was a whole lot of hand shaking between Nazi's and Swiss bankers in those days. That is not an insult to the Swiss, mind you--sometimes getting an enemy by the wallet works better than any number of bullets.

Yeah...I have heard that excuse before.......do you really think that hitler wouldn't have taken over the Swiss banks after he invaded and managed his own money? When he took over every other country in Europe and controlled their banks? From the link I have hitler hated the Swiss....but their armed civilians worried his military leaders to the point it wasn't worth it to invade them....they invaded everyone else, with disarmed populations...but not the Swiss......

since this has been out for a while I will now post my thoughts....

In the 1920s the people of Europe believed their governments when they were told.....you do not need firearms....the police will protect you from criminals, and our soldiers will protect you from foreign invaders......the Swiss did not believe this and kept their guns......

20 years later....the Germans over ran the countries of Europe...except Switzerland......and proceeded to march 12 million unarmed men, women and children from all over Europe...into gas chambers.

The exception...Switzerland, whose citizens had kept their guns, to the tune of having 435,000 armed civilians with the direction that if the Germans invaded, they were to ignore any calls from the government to surrender...and to keep fighting....and they were not invaded, though the Germans had plans all made up.....it wasn't worth the fight....

Then....after the end of the war....with the knowlege that the unarmed people of Europe were unable to resist the Germans, who marched 12 million people into gas chambers, the Europeans forgot the lesson just learned...and gave up their guns...again.......

They really do have short memories....

I think Germany left Switzerland alone because the Swiss had the Germans' money in their banks. There was a whole lot of hand shaking between Nazi's and Swiss bankers in those days. That is not an insult to the Swiss, mind you--sometimes getting an enemy by the wallet works better than any number of bullets.

Yeah...I have heard that excuse before.......do you really think that hitler wouldn't have taken over the Swiss banks after he invaded and managed his own money? When he took over every other country in Europe and controlled their banks? From the link I have hitler hated the Swiss....but their armed civilians worried his military leaders to the point it wasn't worth it to invade them....they invaded everyone else, with disarmed populations...but not the Swiss......

EXCUSE? More a statement of fact. Okay, you've got a source that says the Nazi's were worried about gun carrying civilians. I tend to question that?

They were worried about having to hold the territory against 435,000 armed, determined resistors....with orders to disregard any directive from the Swiss government to surrender after an occupation.....

Guns matter.......the rest of Europe was disarmed.....their people could not resist the nazis and their civilian populations were brutalized and murdered by the Germans...but not the Swiss...as one article I saw pointed out...there was no Holocaust in Switzerland....the rest of Europe handed over innocent men, women and children to the Germans to be murdered in gas chambers....