A quick question, Jay Tea. Evil, David Blaine-controlled Lincoln memorial monster. Too soon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLoaDjWDKwg

I agree. Serves no purpose whatever.

He was not an advocate for a policy. What he mentioned, he wrote in one single column.

The mere fact that years later with further medical information he realized that his extreme suggestion was not technically necessary does not excuse him of the bigotry required to have made it in the first place.

Nobody said it “excuses him.” Harping on something now that he wrote about 20 years ago and later disavowed serves what purpose exactly?

The AIDS virus was discovered in 1984. By 1986 the Surgeon General had already released guidelines on safe sex. Buckley was not speaking as a member of the general public chatting at the corner bar. He was an advocate with millions of followers pushing for a policy. One would hope he would feel the responsibility to educate himself somewhat before pontificating.

In any case, his tattoo idea was extreme regardless of the level of knowledge of the disease at the time. It would have been unprecedented and radical… his anti-gay bigotry is what persuaded him that it was suitable. Such measures were not considered during previous devastating epidemics, and would never have been tolerated.

The mere fact that years later with further medical information he realized that his extreme suggestion was not technically necessary does not excuse him of the bigotry required to have made it in the first place.

No shit jackass, but “progressive causes” is a subjective viewpoint. And considering Senator Byrd voted FOR a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, I guess he doesn’t fit within your little guidelines, does he?

I’m convinced now. You’re retarded.

If by ‘retarded’ you mean, “Somebody that doesn’t adhere to the idiotic notion of identity politics”, then yes, I guess I am.

Because, you see, he was previously working against progressive causes. And now he’s correcting that. Hence, forgiveness.

I’m convinced now. You’re retarded.

Thank you for proving my point. Forgiveness in any form can only be given just so long as you work “towards progressive causes.” Give me a freaking break.

They continue to whine about Affirmative Action

Only to the simplest of the simpletons does opposition to affirmative action equate to the opposition of civil rights.

continue to demand amending anti-gay bigotry into the constitution

Oh you mean like Robert Byrd? The guy who supposedly “works toward progressive causes”?

and continue to mock poor black people for being poor and black.

Now you’re just being an ass. Actually, MORE of an ass.

Oh my god, it’s a conspiracy! If Robert Byrd had joined the GOP in 1994, there might have been more emphasis that a former racist bigot belonged to the party that continues to work to oppose advances for gays, minorities, and foreigners! It’s almost as if it would have completely changed everything about him as a person and thus would have been viewed in a completely different light! And get this… if he became a Republican… Democrats would have opposed him! HOLY SHIT!

Seriously… are you retarded?

Umm, no, you utter, utter, idiot. You can be forgiven- at least partially- when you spend fifty years trying to correct your mistakes by working toward progressive causes. You didn’t “forget,” you’re just retarded.

Has the National Review spun around and repudiated their opposition to civil rights? No. They continue to whine about Affirmative Action, continue to demand amending anti-gay bigotry into the constitution, and continue to mock poor black people for being poor and black.

My point is if that Byrd had switched parties, say in 1994 during the GOP takeover of Congress, he’d become enemy number one to Democrats and we’d immediately be reminded of his segregationist every time his name came up.

Oh wait. I forgot. Unless a person changes party affiliation, and becomes a Democrat, nothing they’ve ever said, whether it was 20 years ago or 50 years ago can ever be forgiven no matter how many times they disavow such statements.

You can be a leader in an organization that actually killed black people, you can vote against the Civil Rights Act (even filibuster it!), vote against the Voting Rights Act, say things like, “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds” and be forgiven. No questions asked. Only as long as you are a DEMOCRAT.

It’s pretty pathetic thinking in my view. Pinning so much about a person on their party affiliation and political ideology.

Yeah, that Moonbat Robert Byrd and his stupid commie pinko constituents who keep re-electing him in WEST VIRGINIA.

I don’t jump up and down with praise for Byrd, but he’s spend the latter half of a century repudiating and expressing regret for his past. The National Review has done no such thing despite their entire founding being diatribes on the “dangers” of racial equality. A generation later, the torch is passed to Jonah Goldberg, who thinks Whole Foods is a communist organization and mocked black people for having the audacity to drown during a natural disaster. It’s hilariously ironic that of all people, Michelle Malkin would praise the life of Buckley- a man who died thinking her marriage (and procreation) to a white man was an abomination. So, seriously, the way-too-tired Robert Bryd card? Thank you, nice try, so sorry, maybe next time.

And seriously, the founder of a magazine who said AIDS patients should be tattooed and opposed racial integration is the moral equivalent of Jimmy Carter? If you truly believe that, Jay, then you’re simply a disgusting human being.

Jay Tea: What the heck is your beef with Zombie Reagan? He’s a Zombie, he’s Ronald Reagan. He’s our undead 41st president! What’s not to like?

Like I said, I think I’ll file this one away and save it for the days that Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and a few other lions of the left go to their Great Reward.

J.

The truth is, Buckley was a great man for at least two reasons. He actually debated and he was willing to change his position. I still have a signed copy of God and Man at Yale that I treasure highly.

It is o.k. to disagree with someone and still value their opinion because it is well-informed.