The official Oldiesfreak thread

[Oldiesfreak1854]

He's black y'all!

For the hundred millionth time, I AM NOT BLACK!!!!!!!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm from South Jersey, Oldies.  What is the chance that I am also a white, Southern racist?  I'm about 35 minutes from Delaware, FYI. 

Extremely high. Jersey was a McClellan state.

So was Delaware.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So, by Oldiesfreak's logic, everyone in New Jersey and Delaware are intrinsically linked to racism forever, because those states voted for McClellan in 1864?

Kentucky voted for McClellan, too.  And I never meant to say that any of those three states were racist because they voted for McClellan.  I was just saying that that was one of the not-so-nice parts of their past, especially their presidential voting record.  The truth is, no rational politicial, Democrat or Republican, would support slavery or segregation today.  But when slavery and segregation existed, they were supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.  I'm not saying the Democrats of today are racist; my point is that it doesn't matter so much what they believe about slavery or segregation now as what they did when they actually existed, and they were in favor of it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'd say what current party leaders believe is more important than some people who are all dead today.

I see your point, but you're oversimplifying mine.  Support for slavery and Jim Crow is as much a part of the history and philosophy that formed the Democratic Party as nativism was to the history and formation of the GOP.  I agree, it matter very much what leaders in both parties think today, but too often Republicans are shouted down as racist because Democrats have done such a good job of rebranding themselves and misbranding Republicans.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Umm... The Democratic party was formed so Andrew Jackson could deafeat JQA, and Jackson was, unlike him, a man of the people. Jackson didn't form it based on racism. The racism was just a very long backwards step until LBJ took over and made it the Civil Rights party again.

Democrats are not the party of civil rights and never were.  LBJ only signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for political expediency.  Prior to that, he had opposed every civil rights bill during his term in the Senate.  As he told a group of Southern governors, "I'll have those nig**rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."   I never said that everything that Democrats do is wrong because of their racist history, and Democrats have certainly done some good (including on civil rights), but when slavery and segregation were relevant issues, Democrats supported them, while Republicans did not.  Whether Democrats support such things now is irrelevant because no rational politician wants a return to slavery or Jim Crow; it would be political suicide.
Also, Shadowlord: Democrats supported slavery before they supported segregation.  And as a Republican, I oppose gay marraige, but I certainly do not hate all homosexuals.

In 1820s everybody and their grandmother, except of few Thaddeuses Stevenses, were racist by today's standards.

As of Jackson, he has image of "man of the people", despite him being essentially a conservative landowner. JQC was no folksy at all, but his political program was actually more progressive. Irony.

I wouldn't quite say everybody; I'm sure there were plenty of figures who genuinely rejected racism (even if they were in the minority.)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Tangent: Anyone wish Oldiesfreak was here in 2008? Especially during the primary.

Black Democrat clinching the nomination of that RACIST party?

Honestly, as a Republican, I did feel betrayed by that.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Q7. Generally speaking, who do you trust more to create jobs: Republicans in Congress, or President Obama?

Republicans in Congress 53%
President Obama 35%
Not sure 12%

lol arkansas

A lot of people in arkansas republicans in the south really hate obama.  I remember bring up his name and they asked me why am I talking about a N word Muslim.  That is horrible

fixed

Will you please cut out the anti-Southern bigotry?  People in the South don't hate Obama because he's black, they hate him because he's a big government liberal who is woefully out of touch with most Southerners.  Granted, this is a PPP poll, and an early one at that, but I don't know whether to be jubilant or morose when I see this poll.

But it's true.  I do admit though that I am probably one of the most virulent anti-Southern posters on here.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Interesting poll result, re: oldiesfreaks' incorrect historical opinions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/kansas-miscellany.html

My historical opinions are not incorrect.  You simlly say they are because you don't like them.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Interesting poll result, re: oldiesfreaks' incorrect historical opinions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/kansas-miscellany.html

My historical opinions are not incorrect.  You simlly say they are because you don't like them.

They are correct in the sense that they are historically. They are simply irrelevant. This is equivalent to someone rooting against Germany's sports teams in international competitions because they believe Germany is an evil, racist, anti-Semitic nation.

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?  And your comparison to Germany and the Holocaust falls flat because people can't choose whether or not they are German (at least if they're native Germans), but they can choose whether or not they are a Democrat.  If you have a choice, then why not go with the party that fought (and in some cases even died) for civil rights, even when it was unpopular? 

Interesting poll result, re: oldiesfreaks' incorrect historical opinions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/kansas-miscellany.html

My historical opinions are not incorrect.  You simlly say they are because you don't like them.

Regardless of whatever you're talking about, it's interesting that (the supposedly racist) Democrats hold the most famous abolitionist in greater esteem than Republicans.

First, consider the source.  PPP has a history of very biased polls toward Democrats.  They may be accurate just before an election, but early on, they tend to produce some highly overstated Dem numbers.  Second, a lot of those people probably don't know for sure who John Brown was.  Third, I don't think this is very accurate if it was only taken in Kansas.  Finally, the most famous abolitionist was probably Lincoln anyway.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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?

But it was only for that election.  The truth is, the GOP was already making gains in the South, and there were plenty of non-race-related factors in thay.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Cathcon is so good at guessing Oldiesfreak's response that people think he is Oldiesfreak.

My pride and my curse.

Exactly.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm7o_MxmiE0

Just when I thought MSNBC couldn't get more insane, they do by intentionally putting an "R" next to George Wallace's name in a video.  Never mind that George Wallace was a Democrat and never joined the GOP.  MSNBC is simply trying to rewrite history to make it look like racist Democrats like George Wallace were Republicans.

But it's a matter of record that George Wallace was a Democrat and never became a Republican.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm7o_MxmiE0

Just when I thought MSNBC couldn't get more insane, they do by intentionally putting an "R" next to George Wallace's name in a video.  Never mind that George Wallace was a Democrat and never joined the GOP.  MSNBC is simply trying to rewrite history to make it look like racist Democrats like George Wallace were Republicans.

But it's a matter of record that George Wallace was a Democrat and never became a Republican.

His son did though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace,_Jr.

Yeah, but remember that George Wallace Senior had a change of heart on race after the assassination attempt on him in 1972.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It just shows a complete ignorance for American history, and my logic is not "polluted", as Polnut claims.  And they may have apologized, but it was clearly intentional and an attempt to make it look like those racist Democrats were Republicans, when most of them never joined the GOP.

PPOR

Also, thoughts on those FoxNews images posted showing Rs labeled as Ds?

Probably just simple mistakes.  I remember one time when MSNBC labeled Harry Reid with an R.  That's different from labeling George Wallace with an R, since that doesn't play on people's ignorance of American history and assumption that the racists and segregationists were Republicans (when they were really Democrats.)

Loldiesfreak's trolling is on a roll today.

I'm not trolling, I'm telling the truth.   You just call it trolling because you don't like what I have to say.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So about Oldiesfreak being big on anti-racism...

I voted HP by mistake, because I thought you meant Congressman John Lewis.

I don't opppse him because he's black, I oppose him because he's a Democrat.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So about Oldiesfreak being big on anti-racism...

I voted HP by mistake, because I thought you meant Congressman John Lewis.

I don't opppse him because he's black, I oppose him because he's a Democrat.

So you're going to disregard all the work he did for the civil rights movement and at SNCC for 25 years of service in Congress on your opposing team?

You're a joke. I honestly hadn't think I'd find an incident with a Republican that I'd be disgusted in more than when Krazen used the bombings on my city as political fodder, but somehow I have. Sure, I absolutely hate facing Mariano Rivera when my boys are facing the Yankees, but off the field, he's arguably the classiest player of all-time, and I'm sad to see him retire. He's against the people I root for, but I can still like him as a person. The fact that you don't proves incidents like Wallacegate's not about race. You just want to score political points.

No; I have much respect for the work he did for the civil rights movement, but considering that, it's amazing that he belongs to a party that included most of the opponents of the civil rights movement.  And he also compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace (who was, of course, a Democrat) during the 2008 campaign: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/John_Lewis_invoking_George_Wallace_says_McCain_and_Palin_playing_with_fire.html

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So about Oldiesfreak being big on anti-racism...

I voted HP by mistake, because I thought you meant Congressman John Lewis.

I don't opppse him because he's black, I oppose him because he's a Democrat.

So you're going to disregard all the work he did for the civil rights movement and at SNCC for 25 years of service in Congress on your opposing team?

You're a joke. I honestly hadn't think I'd find an incident with a Republican that I'd be disgusted in more than when Krazen used the bombings on my city as political fodder, but somehow I have. Sure, I absolutely hate facing Mariano Rivera when my boys are facing the Yankees, but off the field, he's arguably the classiest player of all-time, and I'm sad to see him retire. He's against the people I root for, but I can still like him as a person. The fact that you don't proves incidents like Wallacegate's not about race. You just want to score political points.

No; I have much respect for the work he did for the civil rights movement, but considering that, it's amazing that he belongs to a party that included most of the opponents of the civil rights movement.  And he also compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace (who was, of course, a Democrat) during the 2008 campaign: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/John_Lewis_invoking_George_Wallace_says_McCain_and_Palin_playing_with_fire.html

Perhaps someone who was a leader of the civil rights movement understands the actual history of the civil rights movement better than some 19 year old kid reading things on the internet.

Believe me, I've read plenty of history in textbooks (even left-wing ones), and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the history of the civil rights movement.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So about Oldiesfreak being big on anti-racism...

I voted HP by mistake, because I thought you meant Congressman John Lewis.

I don't opppse him because he's black, I oppose him because he's a Democrat.

So you're going to disregard all the work he did for the civil rights movement and at SNCC for 25 years of service in Congress on your opposing team?

You're a joke. I honestly hadn't think I'd find an incident with a Republican that I'd be disgusted in more than when Krazen used the bombings on my city as political fodder, but somehow I have. Sure, I absolutely hate facing Mariano Rivera when my boys are facing the Yankees, but off the field, he's arguably the classiest player of all-time, and I'm sad to see him retire. He's against the people I root for, but I can still like him as a person. The fact that you don't proves incidents like Wallacegate's not about race. You just want to score political points.

No; I have much respect for the work he did for the civil rights movement, but considering that, it's amazing that he belongs to a party that included most of the opponents of the civil rights movement.  And he also compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace (who was, of course, a Democrat) during the 2008 campaign: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/John_Lewis_invoking_George_Wallace_says_McCain_and_Palin_playing_with_fire.html

Perhaps someone who was a leader of the civil rights movement understands the actual history of the civil rights movement better than some 19 year old kid reading things on the internet.

Believe me, I've read plenty of history in textbooks (even left-wing ones), and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the history of the civil rights movement.

This

[Oldiesfreak1854]

As I believe Cathcon said in my poll on Vito Marcantonio, communist tool.  HP.

Eugene Debs wasn't a communist.

No, but he was a socialist, which is communism's next-door neighbor.  After all, the only major difference is communism is authoritarian and socialism is democratic.

But it's true.

So about Oldiesfreak being big on anti-racism...

I voted HP by mistake, because I thought you meant Congressman John Lewis.

I don't opppse him because he's black, I oppose him because he's a Democrat.

So you're going to disregard all the work he did for the civil rights movement and at SNCC for 25 years of service in Congress on your opposing team?

You're a joke. I honestly hadn't think I'd find an incident with a Republican that I'd be disgusted in more than when Krazen used the bombings on my city as political fodder, but somehow I have. Sure, I absolutely hate facing Mariano Rivera when my boys are facing the Yankees, but off the field, he's arguably the classiest player of all-time, and I'm sad to see him retire. He's against the people I root for, but I can still like him as a person. The fact that you don't proves incidents like Wallacegate's not about race. You just want to score political points.

No; I have much respect for the work he did for the civil rights movement, but considering that, it's amazing that he belongs to a party that included most of the opponents of the civil rights movement.  And he also compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace (who was, of course, a Democrat) during the 2008 campaign: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/John_Lewis_invoking_George_Wallace_says_McCain_and_Palin_playing_with_fire.html

Perhaps someone who was a leader of the civil rights movement understands the actual history of the civil rights movement better than some 19 year old kid reading things on the internet.

Believe me, I've read plenty of history in textbooks (even left-wing ones), and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the history of the civil rights movement.

This

So by that logic, since I've read a bunch of books on child soldiers in Africa, I am now an expert. To hell with college then, I'm going to the United Nations. Thanks, Oldiesfreak!

No, I don't mean just plain old books, I mean textbooks, written by experts in the field.  Even the most anti-Republican scholars have at least admitted to the Democrats' racism in the 19th century, even if they refuse to acknowledge it during the 20th.