The official Oldiesfreak thread

[SPC]

Looks like Oldies is finally embracing his heritage:

6'8.5", about 210 lbs (I haven't been weighed in a while either, so I don't know for sure.)  Everybody tells me I should play basketball because I'm so tall.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Still waiting for Oldies to come with a rational explanation for this:

That was the exception, not the rule.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South started becoming solidly Republican in presidential elections, and it wasn't until the 90s that the GOP started becoming dominant in state elections there.

Looks like Oldies is finally embracing his heritage:

6'8.5", about 210 lbs (I haven't been weighed in a while either, so I don't know for sure.)  Everybody tells me I should play basketball because I'm so tall.

What?  I didn't know there were a lot of people of Scottish, Irish, and Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry who played basketball.

No, they're not irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether or not Democrats support slavery/segregation now, because no rational person in either party would want to bring either of those things back.  What matters is how the parties stood on those issies when they existed.  When they existed, slavery and segregation were both supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  Doesn't that ever give you pause, at least for a moment?

No more pause than Republicans being anti-gay rights in the 2012. . . . . . . . . before the pretty dramatic shift amongst the party towards gay marriage that seems to be getting more and more Republican lawmakers behind it's cause by the day.

Granted, Republicans warmed up to gay marriage a lot quicker than Democrats to desegregation.

I'm a Republicam and I'm all in favor of gay rights.  I'm just not comfortable with redefining marriage in order to do that.  For me, civil unions are the way to go.

No, they're not irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether or not Democrats support slavery/segregation now, because no rational person in either party would want to bring either of those things back.  What matters is how the parties stood on those issies when they existed.  When they existed, slavery and segregation were both supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  Doesn't that ever give you pause, at least for a moment?

No it doesn't.  Not even for a moment. And if you note, you are literally the only person on the forum for whom you seem to care about this (and that includes other Republicans.)

Why not?  Don't you even care that America's greatest president (Lincoln) was from the opposite party (my party), even if it was a long time ago?  It doesn't matter how long ago it was, I don't want to associate myself with a party that has a history as racist as the Democrats' is.  Please explain to me why the great things Democrats did are so much better than the great things Republicans did, and while you're at it, please also explain why the awful things Republicans did are so much worse than the awful things Democrats did. 

[Donerail]

I am dead-set against legalizing marijuana, especially because I lost a cousin from a heroin addiction.

Because marijuana directly leads to heroin.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I am dead-set against legalizing marijuana, especially because I lost a cousin from a heroin addiction.

Because marijuana directly leads to heroin.

No, not directly, but it can.

[Kitteh]

I am dead-set against legalizing marijuana, especially because I lost a cousin from a heroin addiction.

Because marijuana directly leads to heroin.

No, not directly, but it can.

My cousin who died from heroin addiction said that marijuana was a gateway drug (granted, he never used it, but as someone who was a drug addict, he should've known something about it.)

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Still waiting for Oldies to come with a rational explanation for this:

That was the exception, not the rule.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South started becoming solidly Republican in presidential elections, and it wasn't until the 90s that the GOP started becoming dominant in state elections there.

Expand a little more. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, they're not irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether or not Democrats support slavery/segregation now, because no rational person in either party would want to bring either of those things back.  What matters is how the parties stood on those issies when they existed.  When they existed, slavery and segregation were both supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  Doesn't that ever give you pause, at least for a moment?

No it doesn't.  Not even for a moment. And if you note, you are literally the only person on the forum for whom you seem to care about this (and that includes other Republicans.)

Why not?  Don't you even care that America's greatest president (Lincoln) was from the opposite party (my party), even if it was a long time ago?  It doesn't matter how long ago it was, I don't want to associate myself with a party that has a history as racist as the Democrats' is.  Please explain to me why the great things Democrats did are so much better than the great things Republicans did, and while you're at it, please also explain why the awful things Republicans did are so much worse than the awful things Democrats did. 

No, it does not matter. The parties' histories mean NOTHING to mean. Zero, zilch, nada. That's the way it is for the vast majority of people too. I only vote on the parties today, how they were decades ago will NEVER affect my vote. Ever.

Think of what you think of Al Franken. That's what I think of Michele Bachmann. Now if I lived in her district, should I then think "Well this woman absolutely disgusts me and every single thing she stands for...but she is from the same party as Abraham Lincoln, and not the party that used to have a lot of now dead segregationists. I guess I'm voting for her."

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Oldiesfreak, here's the truth in a nutshell:

Democratic Solid South-LBJ does the Civil rights thing-AUH20 wins Deep South-Nixon appeals to the racists in the Democratic party-Racist democrats vote for him-Nixon resigns-Ford and Carter are not racist-Ronald Reagan elected-Black people hate Ronald Reagan-Racists mostly join GOP except for hacks and party loyalits.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Oldiesfreak, here's the truth in a nutshell:

Democratic Solid South-LBJ does the Civil rights thing-AUH20 wins Deep South-Nixon appeals to the racists in the Democratic party-Racist democrats vote for him-Nixon resigns-Ford and Carter are not racist-Ronald Reagan elected-Black people hate Ronald Reagan-Racists mostly join GOP except for hacks and party loyalits.

It's not so much that Nixon appealed to the racists in the Democratic party as that Humphrey and McGovern did not.  In terms of their public rhetoric when it came to either support for civil rights or supposed racial code words, Nixon and Ford weren't that different.

[Modernity has failed us]

I am dead-set against legalizing marijuana, especially because I lost a cousin from a heroin addiction.

Because marijuana directly leads to heroin.

No, not directly, but it can.

My cousin who died from heroin addiction said that marijuana was a gateway drug (granted, he never used it, but as someone who was a drug addict, he should've known something about it.)

Yeah this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. My brain cells are committing suicide.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak, here's the truth in a nutshell:

Democratic Solid South-LBJ does the Civil rights thing-AUH20 wins Deep South-Nixon appeals to the racists in the Democratic party-Racist democrats vote for him-Nixon resigns-Ford and Carter are not racist-Ronald Reagan elected-Black people hate Ronald Reagan-Racists mostly join GOP except for hacks and party loyalits.

No, here is the truth in a nutshell:

LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act for political expediency.  The "Solid South" flips to Goldwater and the Republicans, but only for that election.  Wallace splits the Democratic vote over civil rights in 1968, handing several Southern states to Nixon.  Nixon doesn't pander to racists due to Wallace's candidacy making it pointless.  A few segregationists became Republicans, but the vast majority stayed Democrats for life.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, they're not irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether or not Democrats support slavery/segregation now, because no rational person in either party would want to bring either of those things back.  What matters is how the parties stood on those issies when they existed.  When they existed, slavery and segregation were both supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  Doesn't that ever give you pause, at least for a moment?

No it doesn't.  Not even for a moment. And if you note, you are literally the only person on the forum for whom you seem to care about this (and that includes other Republicans.)

Why not?  Don't you even care that America's greatest president (Lincoln) was from the opposite party (my party), even if it was a long time ago?  It doesn't matter how long ago it was, I don't want to associate myself with a party that has a history as racist as the Democrats' is.  Please explain to me why the great things Democrats did are so much better than the great things Republicans did, and while you're at it, please also explain why the awful things Republicans did are so much worse than the awful things Democrats did. 

No, it does not matter. The parties' histories mean NOTHING to mean. Zero, zilch, nada. That's the way it is for the vast majority of people too. I only vote on the parties today, how they were decades ago will NEVER affect my vote. Ever.

Think of what you think of Al Franken. That's what I think of Michele Bachmann. Now if I lived in her district, should I then think "Well this woman absolutely disgusts me and every single thing she stands for...but she is from the same party as Abraham Lincoln, and not the party that used to have a lot of now dead segregationists. I guess I'm voting for her."

Why dont' the parties' histories mean anything?  And even if the segregationists were dead, they were still Democrats.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Why dont' the parties' histories mean anything?

Because it is not in any way relevant to the type of policies they will enact today.

And even if the segregationists were dead, they were still Democrats.

And that is not in any way relevant to the policies the parties will enact today.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why dont' the parties' histories mean anything?

Because it is not in any way relevant to the type of policies they will enact today.

And even if the segregationists were dead, they were still Democrats.

And that is not in any way relevant to the policies the parties will enact today.

I get that.  But I still don't want to associate myself with a party that ever supported slavery and segregation, no matter how long ago it was.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why dont' the parties' histories mean anything?

Because it is not in any way relevant to the type of policies they will enact today.

And even if the segregationists were dead, they were still Democrats.

And that is not in any way relevant to the policies the parties will enact today.

Don't waste your time.

[Gamecock]

Oldiesfreak,

It is perfectly acceptable to feel a sense of pride as a Republican that the GOP had a hand in freeing the slaves and being a participant in the struggle for civil rights. This is the same feeling that Democrats get when they feel pride in their party being the party of Social Security, the party that led the U.S. through World War II, etc. However it is not logical to base your vote and political beliefs off of events that took place one hundred and fifty years ago.

I also must say, that as a southerner, I am a bit disappointed that you hold Democrats feet to the fire for their bigotry a hundred years ago and yet you hold the same bigoted assumptions about the South today.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Oldiesfreak, here's the truth in a nutshell:

Democratic Solid South-LBJ does the Civil rights thing-AUH20 wins Deep South-Nixon appeals to the racists in the Democratic party-Racist democrats vote for him-Nixon resigns-Ford and Carter are not racist-Ronald Reagan elected-Black people hate Ronald Reagan-Racists mostly join GOP except for hacks and party loyalits.

No, here is the truth in a nutshell:

LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act for political expediency.  The "Solid South" flips to Goldwater and the Republicans, but only for that election.  Wallace splits the Democratic vote over civil rights in 1968, handing several Southern states to Nixon.  Nixon doesn't pander to racists due to Wallace's candidacy making it pointless.  A few segregationists became Republicans, but the vast majority stayed Democrats for life.

Let me expand on my side:

LBJ does Civil Rights stuff partly because his predecessor's death (death of a predecessor can help change views- see Chester Arthur's views before and after Garfield died.), and partly because of his own anti-intitutionalized racism, but he was still very racist himself by modern standards. As a result, the southern Democrats in 1964 voted for Goldwater, because Goldwater opposed the actions.

In 1968, with another anti-racist on the Democrat ticket, the southerners form a new party and make bigot George Wallace the nominee. Wallace wins most of the south because of his racism. The rest split the vote and Nixon wins. From then on, Nixon pandered to the racists.

After Carter was nominated, the south briefly became democratic (only because Carter himself was a southerner), but then Reagan, who won, pandered even more so to the racists, doing everything he can to make blacks miserable. As a result, the Republicans become the party of racism. Most racist Democrats switch parties, such as Thurmond. A few don't join, but only stay out of party loyalty than re-alignment.

Political parties evolve. Jackson would be appalled by todays Democrats, as well as Lincoln and todays Republicans.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak, here's the truth in a nutshell:

Democratic Solid South-LBJ does the Civil rights thing-AUH20 wins Deep South-Nixon appeals to the racists in the Democratic party-Racist democrats vote for him-Nixon resigns-Ford and Carter are not racist-Ronald Reagan elected-Black people hate Ronald Reagan-Racists mostly join GOP except for hacks and party loyalits.

No, here is the truth in a nutshell:

LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act for political expediency.  The "Solid South" flips to Goldwater and the Republicans, but only for that election.  Wallace splits the Democratic vote over civil rights in 1968, handing several Southern states to Nixon.  Nixon doesn't pander to racists due to Wallace's candidacy making it pointless.  A few segregationists became Republicans, but the vast majority stayed Democrats for life.

Let me expand on my side:

LBJ does Civil Rights stuff partly because his predecessor's death (death of a predecessor can help change views- see Chester Arthur's views before and after Garfield died.), and partly because of his own anti-intitutionalized racism, but he was still very racist himself by modern standards. As a result, the southern Democrats in 1964 voted for Goldwater, because Goldwater opposed the actions.

In 1968, with another anti-racist on the Democrat ticket, the southerners form a new party and make bigot George Wallace the nominee. Wallace wins most of the south because of his racism. The rest split the vote and Nixon wins. From then on, Nixon pandered to the racists.

After Carter was nominated, the south briefly became democratic (only because Carter himself was a southerner), but then Reagan, who won, pandered even more so to the racists, doing everything he can to make blacks miserable. As a result, the Republicans become the party of racism. Most racist Democrats switch parties, such as Thurmond. A few don't join, but only stay out of party loyalty than re-alignment.

Political parties evolve. Jackson would be appalled by todays Democrats, as well as Lincoln and todays Republicans.

Nixon and Reagan never pandered to racists.  Nixon was a champion of civil rights throughout his life, and while playing football at Eureka College, Reagan took in two black teammates who weren't allowed to stay at the same hotel as the team. The vast majority of the racist Democrats did not join the GOP.  Thurmond was in the minority that did.  Fritz Hollings, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Bob Byrd, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, and nearly all the rest were Democrats for life.  If the segregationist switched parties, then why was Fritz Hollings serving in the Senate as a Democrat in 2004, and Bob Byrd as a Democrat in 2010?
You can't prove that Jackson or Lincoln would be appalled by the parties today.  But that being said, I'm already appalled at both of them.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What one feels or does personally, often, has little impact on what one is prepared to do to get elected. You want to tell yourself that the GOP has not become an expert in code-language to comfort their increasingly paranoid white base... go right ahead, you'll continue to be very very wrong.

If you don't think the 1968 Southern Strategy was not about appealing to 'traditional' Southerners who had felt abandoned by the Dems shift on Civil Rights since 1962... then your bubble clearly has some mighty-thick walls.




Gee... I wonder what might have happened before the 1964 election to cause this shift?


For example in Australia, the Liberal (conservative party) Party undid the hideous White Australia Policy and welcomed Vietnamese refugees... but now, their policy relies on using racial dog whistles... does that mean because their policy positions were once good... despite what they are now... that I should support a party because of their positions in THE PAST.

[Torie]

You'll are chatting with a brick wall on this issue. Give it up. The Dems have a scarlet letter than can never be erased. It will last until the supernova consumes our planet. And no matter what the Pubs do, they are the party of Lincoln, and thus no matter how disdained they are by folks of color due to a wing of their party being challenged on that front, they have a get out of jail card for the same period. there is nothing more to be said, so please don't say anything more. It would be redundant. Thanks.

[LastVoter]

You'll are chatting with a brick wall on this issue. Give it up. The Dems have a scarlet letter than can never be erased. It will last until the supernova consumes are planet. And no matter what the Pubs do, they are the party of Lincoln, and thus no matter how disdained they are by folks of color due to a wing of their party being challenged on that front, they have a get out of jail card for the same period. there is nothing more to be said, so please don't say anything more. It would be redundant. Thanks.

Lol

[Paul Kemp]

You'll are chatting with a brick wall on this issue. Give it up. The Dems have a scarlet letter than can never be erased. It will last until the supernova consumes are planet. And no matter what the Pubs do, they are the party of Lincoln, and thus no matter how disdained they are by folks of color due to a wing of their party being challenged on that front, they have a get out of jail card for the same period. there is nothing more to be said, so please don't say anything more. It would be redundant. Thanks.

not sure if serious...

[Maxwell]

He's literally baiting you on the civil rights stuff, so if we are going to keep going in this circle over and over, fine.

[Torie]

You'll are chatting with a brick wall on this issue. Give it up. The Dems have a scarlet letter than can never be erased. It will last until the supernova consumes are planet. And no matter what the Pubs do, they are the party of Lincoln, and thus no matter how disdained they are by folks of color due to a wing of their party being challenged on that front, they have a get out of jail card for the same period. there is nothing more to be said, so please don't say anything more. It would be redundant. Thanks.

not sure if serious...

It's only flaw it that it had a typo, which I have now corrected. Thanks.

[Paul Kemp]

You'll are chatting with a brick wall on this issue. Give it up. The Dems have a scarlet letter than can never be erased. It will last until the supernova consumes are planet. And no matter what the Pubs do, they are the party of Lincoln, and thus no matter how disdained they are by folks of color due to a wing of their party being challenged on that front, they have a get out of jail card for the same period. there is nothing more to be said, so please don't say anything more. It would be redundant. Thanks.

not sure if serious...

It's only flaw it that it had a typo, which I have now corrected. Thanks.

So the GOP could support segregation tomorrow and would have a "get out of jail free card" because of Lincoln?