The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

On Obama being a socialist-

No. He's more of a fascist, really

this is not absurd, but accurate.

Strictly speaking, Obama is probably closer to being a fascist than a socialist. But that's like saying Timbuktu is closer to New York than to Los Angeles.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

That pretty much doesn't happen nowadays, unless there's a live boy/dead girl type scandal.

Paul Ryan is the most thoroughly unvetted VP in modern history. He's probably molesting children and seniors without Medicare in his basement as we speak.

Paul Ryan is the most thoroughly unvetted VP in modern history. He's probably molesting children and seniors without Medicare in his basement as we speak.

He's probably molesting children and seniors without Medicare in his basement as we speak.

Yup. Somebody just got iggied...

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Not the original posts, but the edits, obviously.

HP

HP

HP

What did the original posts say?

Also, this thread is starting to suck massive d.

...and now we're starting to take that massive d somewhere where it's even more unpleasant...

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

I'd say that the fact that the "main reason" you won't vote for a political party is because of stuff that happened nearly 80 years ago is pretty damn absurd and ignorant, for a start.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

And I'm just saying that it is completely absurd to judge the parties by what they did in 1860 or even in 1933 as opposed to what they are doing NOW. It's one thing if you oppose the Democrats because of their CURRENT positions on the issues, but to oppose them based on things that happened 80-150 years ago (things which anyone with any knowledge of history and current events can see has absolutely no bearing on that party's position today) is nothing short of idiotic.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

And I'm just saying that it is completely absurd to judge the parties by what they did in 1860 or even in 1933 as opposed to what they are doing NOW. It's one thing if you oppose the Democrats because of their CURRENT positions on the issues, but to oppose them based on things that happened 80-150 years ago (things which anyone with any knowledge of history and current events can see has absolutely no bearing on that party's position today) is nothing short of idiotic.

I oppose Democrats for more reasons than just their history of racism and support for slavery and segregation.  There are plenty of other reasons I will not vote for them, including their support for abortion and gay marriage, as well as their support for job-killing economic policies that raise taxes on the rich in the name of "fairness" but ultimately hurt everybody by hindering businesses and discouraging growth.

Then why don't you talk about that, which makes (some) sense, rather than slavery?

I quite agree with SJoyceFla. Like I said, it's okay if you oppose Democrats on ideological grounds for the issues and agendas they pursue today, even though we disagree. But it is absolutely ridiculous to oppose them because of the politics of 150 years ago, when it's blatantly obvious that those politics do not apply in this day and age.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Racism, like most isms, is not binary. Nixon's objective was to walk the tightrope between Humphrey's strong and longstanding record on Civil Rights and Wallace. Nixon positioned himself as a happy medium. His racism was just right

Nixon was not a racist.  He actually had a much better civil rights record as president than LBJ.  Here's a Nixon campaign ad from 1960 to prove that:
http://www.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=dAlZHfaksQM

If he supported civil rights in 1960, then what makes you think he would have such an about-face in just eight years?  I think much of he Nixon-as-racist myth comes from the fact that Nixon simply makes an easy pinata for left-wing historians because of Watergate.  But that doesn't change the fact that Nixon was one of our best presidents on civl rights. 

Continually quoting his talk on this type of stuff here is kind of beating a dead horse but:

WND and National Review?  Nice unbiased, intellectually honest sources you got there.

1980 had Carter at the top of the ticket (as well as John Anderson to slow the flight of moderate northerners to the Democratic Party, in a counterpoint to Wallace), and as I already mentioned, he ran the most Southern and evangelical candidacy probably ever.  Any other Dem candidate, and the patterns would likely have emerged eight years sooner- and they already had started emerging in the Northeast, he mainly just held onto the South at the expense of not taking the West Coast.

And, of course, the Southern Strategy is undisputed fact.

No, it's not.  Nixon trying to pander to racists with Wallace in the race would be like a Republican presidential canidate campaigning in California or a Democrat in Texas today.  The Southern strategy was about winning the pro-civil rights moderates who had moved to the South after WWII as a protest against the segregationist Democrats.

It's true, though.  THe white racists were already safely in Wallace's column.

Debunked in the original thread. And I was referring primarily to the last sentence, which only makes sense if you consider Strom Thurmond a pro-civil rights moderate. And completely ignore what Nixon's political strategist said.

Which of Nixon's strategists?  Don't say Lee Atwater because he was only 17 in 1968, so he couldn't have been one of Nixon's strategists.  And the simple fact is, plenty of moderate Northerners moved to the South in the 50s and 60s, and they were much more inclined to support civil rights, and thus Republican candidates.  So my explanatio  makes perfect sense, and it's also what another Nixon strategist (Pat Buchanan) said about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_(political_commentator)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

On the surface, direct popular vote seems fairer, but if you don't live in a big state like California, Texas, New York, or Florida, then you would have virtually no say in that system.

Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

In a direct popular vote, one vote is one vote, regardless of whether you live in New York City or Hooterville. Let's compare the two systems. Let's say the Republican wins Wyoming by ten thousand votes and the Democrat wins California by ten thousand votes. With a direct popular vote, the election is tied at this point. But in the Electoral College, the Democrat leads 55-3. That means that the ten thousand voters who made the difference in California are over eighteen times as powerful as the ten thousand voters who made the difference in Wyoming. This does not resemble anything even remotely fair. And if you bothered to watch the video that FallenMorgan posted, you'd know that the 100 most populous cities in America amount to less than 20% of the population, proving the absurdity of the argument that big cities would dominate presidential elections in a popular vote system.

Not true.  Big states would be even more powerful than they are now under popular vote.  For example, a candidate could carry California, lose every other state, and still win the election because California has so many more people.