Is Oldiesfreak the new Rochambeau?

[King]

It's a simple question.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Rochambeau was a spamming machine, yet made much more sense.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, The Roch didn't have a skewed view of history.

[Torie]

R was sui generis. Affecting, much less effecting, any reasonably simulation thereof would violate the Newtonian laws of physics, and I don't understand the theory of relativity.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, The Roch didn't have a skewed view of history.

Neither do I.  And how am I like him anyway?

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

Could someone please enlighten me and tell me why OldiesFreak has such a bad rep here?  Looking at his posts, it seems like he definitely doesn't like Democrats, but I don't see anything awful that he says or does.  He seems reasonable and objective enough to me. 

[Torie]

No, The Roch didn't have a skewed view of history.

Neither do I.  And how am I like him anyway?

You're not dear. They are just trying to get a rise out of you. Not that you don't have "issues" ...

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Roach was one of the worst to ever sign up.  Somehow I think he's still here, just not being the roachy creature he was.

[TDAS04]

Could someone please enlighten me and tell me why OldiesFreak has such a bad rep here?  Looking at his posts, it seems like he definitely doesn't like Democrats, but I don't see anything awful that he says or does.  He seems reasonable and objective enough to me. 

I agree with these thoughts.  Regardless of his rigid party loyalty, his actual views and statements are not that extreme at all.  Oldiesfreak is very proud of his party's origins, as he should be.  The Republicans were far better on civil rights than the Democrats were in the past, and maybe he just wants to keep that tradition alive forever.  Other posters are hard on him, but he should also get credit for sticking to his own interpretations of history.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Could someone please enlighten me and tell me why OldiesFreak has such a bad rep here?  Looking at his posts, it seems like he definitely doesn't like Democrats, but I don't see anything awful that he says or does.  He seems reasonable and objective enough to me. 

I agree with these thoughts.  Regardless of his rigid party loyalty, his actual views and statements are not that extreme at all.  Oldiesfreak is very proud of his party's origins, as he should be.  The Republicans were far better on civil rights than the Democrats were in the past, and maybe he just wants to keep that tradition alive forever.  Other posters are hard on him, but he should also get credit for sticking to his own interpretations of history.

Except his "interpretations" are wrong.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Could someone please enlighten me and tell me why OldiesFreak has such a bad rep here?  Looking at his posts, it seems like he definitely doesn't like Democrats, but I don't see anything awful that he says or does.  He seems reasonable and objective enough to me. 

I agree with these thoughts.  Regardless of his rigid party loyalty, his actual views and statements are not that extreme at all.  Oldiesfreak is very proud of his party's origins, as he should be.  The Republicans were far better on civil rights than the Democrats were in the past, and maybe he just wants to keep that tradition alive forever.  Other posters are hard on him, but he should also get credit for sticking to his own interpretations of history.

Except his "interpretations" are wrong.

No, they're not.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, The Roch didn't have a skewed view of history.

Neither do I.  And how am I like him anyway?

You're not. He was way smarter than you.

[Franzl]

No, The Roch didn't have a skewed view of history.

Neither do I.  And how am I like him anyway?

You're not. He was way smarter than you.

And Roach was white.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

Could someone please enlighten me and tell me why OldiesFreak has such a bad rep here?  Looking at his posts, it seems like he definitely doesn't like Democrats, but I don't see anything awful that he says or does.  He seems reasonable and objective enough to me. 

I agree with these thoughts.  Regardless of his rigid party loyalty, his actual views and statements are not that extreme at all.  Oldiesfreak is very proud of his party's origins, as he should be.  The Republicans were far better on civil rights than the Democrats were in the past, and maybe he just wants to keep that tradition alive forever.  Other posters are hard on him, but he should also get credit for sticking to his own interpretations of history.

Except his "interpretations" are wrong.

No, they're not.

IMO, Oldies is definitely right that the Dem Party has a very racist past and the Republican Party did not.  For example, Goldwater voted for every civil rights act up to the 1964 one and LBJ voted against them up to the 1964 one.  How things have changed since is the more contentious question.  But it is worth pointing out that almost all the Democrat Senators that voted against the Civil Rights Act, with the lone exception of Strom Thurmond, remained Democrats for the rest of their lives (Bob Byrd, Sam Ervin, James Eastland, Orval Faubus, Al Gore Sr). Clinton's mentor, J. William Fulbright, was also a segregationist.

That being said, I think it's reasonable to say that most racists lean Republican now, but there are also far fewer racists now than there were then, and most of them have died off.  Also, while you can call the segregationist Democrats "conservative", many of them had very liberal views.  Sam Ervin was a progressive hero and Bob Byrd had a 100% NARAL rating, even protecting partial birth abortions. 

[TDAS04]

I would have been ashamed to have been a Democrat in the 1800s, and any serious non-racist would feel the same.  That should not be a major factor for party preference in 2013, so I disagree with Oldiesfreak on that.  Having said that, Oldiesfreak is a good guy.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I would have been ashamed to have been a Democrat in the 1800s, and any serious non-racist would feel the same.  That should not be a major factor for party preference in 2013, so I disagree with Oldiesfreak on that.  Having said that, Oldiesfreak is a good guy.

Thank you!  Of course, I think it is important today because slavery/segregation aren't major issues now, but when they were, Democrats were the racists and Republicans the ones who fought against them.

[Sol]

Just as a note for some of y'all, the big points of conflict between Oldiesfreak and the rest of the forum revolve around the southern strategy, not about the racism of 1860s democrats.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

Just as a note for some of y'all, the big points of conflict between Oldiesfreak and the rest of the forum revolve around the southern strategy, not about the racism of 1860s democrats.

The Democrats proudly nominated segregationists for major offices up to 1968(George Mahoney, in particular).  Democrats filibustered anti-lynching bills in the 1950's that Republicans fought hard to pass.   
The  Southern Strategy may have had racial undertones, but it wasn't racist in and of itself.  The issue wasn't about bringing back segregation, it was about whether forced desegregation/busing should be required.  Nixon opposed this busing, as did many non-racists.  Other issues in the Southern Strategy included the opposition of the counter-culture and law/order.  None of these are racist objectives.

It may be fair to say that the Republicans may have tried to court racists at the time(as the modern RNC has apologized), but I think they really were just trying to court people who agreed with them on these issues.