The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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?)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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,

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

During my time on this forum, I've been known to ruffle plenty of feathers.  If you are one of those people, then I hope that you will read this.  As nearly all of you who are familiar with me and my posting history know, I am passionate about civil rights and civil rights history.  (But contrary to popular misconception, I am indeed white, not black.)  And in the midst of that I have jokingly said some things that were bigoted and hateful toward Southerners.  Although I must admit that those feelings are real, I would like to apologize for voicing them.  I will try not to continue making such posts, and if I do, please feel free to report me.  Thank you.

I had to bold the best line.

Lmaaaaaaaao. That is some amazing stuff right there Oldies lol

I meant that in all seriousness.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

More historical revisionism from our favorite historical revisionist:

As for the Election Thief Franken, I have no idea why Minnesota would elect him (or rather, why the state Supreme Court would select him.)  I also have no idea why he would be popular.  I can already see the perfect bumper sticker: "Re-Defeat Franken 2014."  But then again, they did elect Jesse Ventura as their governor in 1998, so I guess it's not that surprising.  But that proves just how pathetic Minnesota voters (and their state Supreme Court) are.  And Norm Coleman was a hardworking, constituent-oriented Senator too.  (Then again, he was reelected, but the convicted felons and the Minnesota Supreme Court stole it from him.)  

I'm not a historical revisionist, but I'd hate to turn up the opportunity to be your favorite Lief.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1866

Antonio V: This is perfect!  We Democrats start the Ku Klux Klan to get rid of all those Republicans, and then, 150 years from now, we pretend that Republicans did all these things!

Welln, it's true.  Democrats are constantly pretending that slavery, segregation, the KKK, etc. either were or are Republican institutions despite the fact that they were all Democrat institutions instead.  If Sigmund Freud examined today's Democratic Party, he would have to conclude that they are denying their party's racist past and projecting it onto Republicans.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1866

Antonio V: This is perfect!  We Democrats start the Ku Klux Klan to get rid of all those Republicans, and then, 150 years from now, we pretend that Republicans did all these things!

Welln, it's true.  Democrats are constantly pretending that slavery, segregation, the KKK, etc. either were or are Republican institutions despite the fact that they were all Democrat institutions instead.  If Sigmund Freud examined today's Democratic Party, he would have to conclude that they are denying their party's racist past and projecting it onto Republicans.

Oh, we're not denying our racist past. We know and accept that back then, 150 years ago, Democrats were racist and Republicans weren't (see Cathcon's Atlas US Elections thing). You're denying the Republican Party's racist or at least semi-racist present.

Only because they're not.  Why would they go backwards at the same time that society became less racist and Democrats became the party of sunshine and lollipops?  And it doesn't matter how long ago Democrats were racist.  What matters is that they were racist, and all but a few of the 20th century racist/segregationist Democrats stayed with the Democratic Party for life.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

He may have said that, but it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that, so he was in the minority on wantinf to pursue that kind of course.  And remember what LBJ said about blacks after signing the '64 CRA:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this one is from Theodore White's 1968 edition of The Making of the President, which was written during the 1968 campagin.  I doubt he was a right-winger, considering his background, but here's the quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Finally, why do you accuse me of having unreliable sources when you're citing Wikipedia as one of yours?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What is absurd is the assertion that the tendency of a Texan born in 1908 to use a certain taboo word and to express certain things in ways that would now raise eyebrows means anything other than the fact he was a Texan born in 1908. Especially when said Texan was not exactly noted for his delicate language in private.

That doesn't mean he wasn't racist though.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Oldiesfreak Memorial Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance and Bad Posts has a nice ring to it.

Republicans declare war on liberal hacks and historical revisionists, Oldiesfreak to lead the charge.

Should we rename this thread in 'honor' of Oldiesfreak? Because seriously, now…

I can't help it if you can't stand up to facts.  Or should I say this instead:
http://www.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Ouch!  You guys are mean!!!

On second thought, I'm humbled that a thread was named after me.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Last time I checked, President Bush wasn't a bad president.  I'm a Democrat, but IMO, he was the better person to handle 9/11.  President Bush was also far from "dumb".  He is extremely intelligent (almost too much for his own good).  He wasn't a great president, but he wasn't a bad president, either.  I think history will smile on his administration overall.  Iraq was not a mistake, initially, it was IMPERATIVE to get Saddam Hussein out of there.  The problem lies in not being prepared for such a quick and decisive victory over the Saddam regime.  Al Gore would have been alright, but he's just not a likeable guy.  President Obama, OTOH, is very likeable and very intelligtent.  Al Gore needs to stay in the background, otherwise he will pretty much guarantee a Republican will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017.  Also, Hillary is far from a guarantee.  Even if she does run, she's not automatically going to win.  America is still a center-right country.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, can call George W. Bush dumb and be correct.

That's not an absurd, ignorant, or bad post because it's true, aside from America being a center-right country (it's actually center-left).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Republicans from the 1860s ould be Republicans today  and the Democrats from the old days 1860s would be Liberal Democrats today.

Absolutely they should be if they were around!  And they would be; they never "switched sides", the times (and the meanings of liberal and conservative)  just changed and made Republicans the conservatives and Democrats the liberals.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Republicans from the 1860s ould be Republicans today  and the Democrats from the old days 1860s would be Liberal Democrats today.

Absolutely they should be if they were around!  And they would be; they never "switched sides", the times (and the meanings of liberal and conservative)  just changed and made Republicans the conservatives and Democrats the liberals.

But it's true.

In the Oldiesfreak world Strom Thurmond was to the left of Robert LaFollette.

Until he had a change of heart and became a Republican because of the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Yeah, but most segregationists never left the Democratic party.  A few became Republicans, but most did not.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Republicans from the 1860s ould be Republicans today  and the Democrats from the old days 1860s would be Liberal Democrats today.

Absolutely they should be if they were around!  And they would be; they never "switched sides", the times (and the meanings of liberal and conservative)  just changed and made Republicans the conservatives and Democrats the liberals.

But it's true.

If you actually believe Strom Thurmond was to the left of Robert LaFollette, yes.

In the Oldiesfreak world Strom Thurmond was to the left of Robert LaFollette.

Until he had a change of heart and became a Republican because of the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Yeah, but most segregationists never left the Democratic party.  A few became Republicans, but most did not.

And basically all of those are dead today. Or if not dead out of politics and with no influence whatsoever.

Lincoln is dead today as well, but does he seriously not make you more likely to support Republicans?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Lincoln is dead today as well, but does he seriously not make you more likely to support Republicans?

Of course he doesn't.  What kind of jackass supports a party because of one leader 150 years ago?

Who would support a nation that interred Japanese Americans 70 years ago either?

The Republicans from the 1860s ould be Republicans today  and the Democrats from the old days 1860s would be Liberal Democrats today.

Absolutely they should be if they were around!  And they would be; they never "switched sides", the times (and the meanings of liberal and conservative)  just changed and made Republicans the conservatives and Democrats the liberals.

But it's true.

In the Oldiesfreak world Strom Thurmond was to the left of Robert LaFollette.

Until he had a change of heart and became a Republican because of the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Yeah, but most segregationists never left the Democratic party.  A few became Republicans, but most did not.

Yeah, but they started voting Republican on national, and then state, levels.

True, but it wasn't because of race.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This thread is a trainwreck.  There comes a point where people are criticizing oldiesfreak as absurd and are being absurd themselves in the way they are doing it.

The only reason I quoted the one above is because of the fact he's obviously referring to a single year and a half old poll from SUSA (which has become a bit of a running joke if you check the Comedy Goldmine.)

Exactly.  Why do I have to be bullied by all of you when all I'm doing is daring to speak the truth?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I propose we ban Oldiesfreak stuff from the deluge. Regardless of how you feel about him it's cluttering this thread up. I've made a new thread for this.

Thank you, drj.