opinion of john lindsay

[Indy Texas]

New York suffered grievously at his hands, ultimately leading to its bankruptcy. Among other things, the municipal unions ate him for lunch, and then spit him out. He seem to assume I guess in his hubris (hubris so great that after f'ing up the Big Apple, he then decided it was time to be POTUS) that being a handsome and polished upper class WASP was enough. It wasn't. The man was gutless, and lacked intellectual depth and yes, lazy. I know the type well. Useless creatures really.

Emphasis mine.

It's worth pointing out that contrary to his public image, he did not come from an "old money" family. In fact, he was in a fairly precarious financial position in his later years and served on a couple of city commissions in largely nominal positions that he had been appointed to out of pity because he had no other sources of wealth or income to draw on.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

[Indy Texas]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

Because Oldiesfreak views things through a binary prism of Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad at all times and in all situations. He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Republican Party is still a centrist Eisenhower party that isn't dominated by SoCons and Southerners.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

Because Oldiesfreak views things through a binary prism of Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad at all times and in all situations. He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Republican Party is still a centrist Eisenhower party that isn't dominated by SoCons and Southerners.

I know that, but it's been a while since I heard his obtuse way of reasoning. Last time we had this conversation, it was about Lincoln Chafee. Not that I'm unfamiliar with his posts, but on the particular issue of party switches, I need a refresher. Hearing someone else explain it does me no good.

[IceSpear]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

Because Oldiesfreak views things through a binary prism of Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad at all times and in all situations. He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Republican Party is still a centrist Eisenhower party that isn't dominated by SoCons and Southerners.

He's hardly alone in that. I know people that are liberal on most issues but still vote Republican because "Republicans want small government" or "Republicans love God" or something like that.

[Maxwell]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

Because Oldiesfreak views things through a binary prism of Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad at all times and in all situations. He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Republican Party is still a centrist Eisenhower party that isn't dominated by SoCons and Southerners.

I know that, but it's been a while since I heard his obtuse way of reasoning. Last time we had this conversation, it was about Lincoln Chafee. Not that I'm unfamiliar with his posts, but on the particular issue of party switches, I need a refresher. Hearing someone else explain it does me no good.

He's trolling.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

Because Oldiesfreak views things through a binary prism of Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad at all times and in all situations. He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Republican Party is still a centrist Eisenhower party that isn't dominated by SoCons and Southerners.

I know that, but it's been a while since I heard his obtuse way of reasoning. Last time we had this conversation, it was about Lincoln Chafee. Not that I'm unfamiliar with his posts, but on the particular issue of party switches, I need a refresher. Hearing someone else explain it does me no good.

I think I can explain it better.  In two words: civil rights.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

Because Oldiesfreak views things through a binary prism of Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad at all times and in all situations. He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Republican Party is still a centrist Eisenhower party that isn't dominated by SoCons and Southerners.

The GOP is dominated by socons and Southerners, and I want to change that to make it more diverse (without alienating those folks, of course.)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

FF until he switched parties, HP after that.

Why is that?

Because Oldiesfreak views things through a binary prism of Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad at all times and in all situations. He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Republican Party is still a centrist Eisenhower party that isn't dominated by SoCons and Southerners.

I know that, but it's been a while since I heard his obtuse way of reasoning. Last time we had this conversation, it was about Lincoln Chafee. Not that I'm unfamiliar with his posts, but on the particular issue of party switches, I need a refresher. Hearing someone else explain it does me no good.

I think I can explain it better.  In two words: civil rights.

Did John Lindsay suddenly stand for different things when he changed from "R" to "D"? Party identification doesn't mean you stand for sh#t. You can be just as horrible a person when you're in one party compared to when you're in another. Putting "R" next to his name neither confirmed nor denied whatever his stance on civil rights was, and changing his label to better suit his ideology didn't take any of that away. I suppose John Tower, who was against the 1964 CRA and the 1965 VRA, is just as much an "FF" in your eyes due to having been registered with the party of "civil rights" during that time.

Let's say that in this modern world of ours, there's someone that votes for the Republican party for just about one reason: the party's stance against abortion. Thus, they tend to view all Democrats as being pro-choice automatically and all Republicans as pro-life automatically. This also leads them to discount other qualities of the parties, such as their economic, other social, and foreign policy positions. However, as long as you're with the GOP, you're opposing abortion. That means that you would refuse to vote for Robert Casey, even, theoretically, against a pro-choice Republican. As well, you'd be deluding yourself into thinking a vote for Scott Brown is a vote against abortion, and obviously William Weld is a shining hero to the pro-life movement. As well, that would indicate that, upon Chafee's conversion from Republican to Independent, he had actually tossed aside previous pro-life rhetoric (which we both know he had) in order to adopt a pro-choice stance. And on, and on, and on.