Opinion of Oldiesfreak1854

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think you know my opinion.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Needs to get over the idea that the Democratic Party is - and continues to be - history's greatest monster.

I actually found this to be quite amusing.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The guy who says the Southern Strategy was all about attracting pro-Civil Rights southerners? LOL

But it's true.  You all have just accepted revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, and that includes a lot of Republicans.  And not all Southern Democrats were racists or segregationists.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.''--Bill Bennett, Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan

''You start out in 1954 by saying, 'n, n, n.' By 1968 you can't say 'n' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'n, n.'''--Lee Atwater, deputy and political director of the Reagan '84 campaign, campaign manager for Bush '88, and RNC chairman. You can listen to him say it yourself here.

"I believe in states' rights.... I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment."--Ronald Reagan, in Philadelphia, MS

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the VRA of 1965, a national holiday for MLK, scrapping the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools practicing racial discrimination, and vetoed the imposition of sanctions on apartheid South Africa. And how about this?

Reagan originally supported the 1964 CRA, stating that it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary."  If he opposed any of those laws, it was because of concerns about the constitutionality, not race.  MLK's family also opposed a national holiday for him, too.  That's hardly evidence of racism. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100265457/The-Truth-Nixon-s-Southern-Strategy

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why don't you just read the link instead of criticizing?  And as for the Bill Bennett quote, he was being sarcastic.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's actually from a book.  And it quotes Theodore White's 1968 edition of Making of the President, and he saw the 1968 campaign as it played out. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oh, and BTW, can we please get back to people's opinion of me?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well this Glen Moore appears to be a "historian", though I can't find any writings on anything else by him, and the most notable person citing him appears to be....well it's better if you just see for yourself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjCm2uXXCo8

You must be thinking of another Glen Moore.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why don't you just read the link instead of criticizing?  And as for the Bill Bennett quote, he was being sarcastic.

...

Who are you? What are you? It's not possible, even for the internet standards, someone can be that hopelessly stupid. Please tell me you're just trying (and failing) to be a funny troll. Otherwise, I will lost all remaining (and there's little) faith in humanity, science and nature combined. I refuse to believe the nature produced something like you. This world is already badly f**ked up but, for the love of God, there must be some limits!

Your posts causes my brain cells to die, slowly and in unspeakable pain. You are a monster, a villain but, please, at least don't be a sincere monster.

The guy who says the Southern Strategy was all about attracting pro-Civil Rights southerners? LOL

But it's true.  You all have just accepted revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, and that includes a lot of Republicans.

Ahaha oh Christ you're literally a moron.

Facts are a stubborn thing, my friends.  Just because they don't support your side doesn't mean you should shoot the messenger.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The guy who says the Southern Strategy was all about attracting pro-Civil Rights southerners? LOL

But it's true.  You all have just accepted revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, and that includes a lot of Republicans.  And not all Southern Democrats were racists or segregationists.

Ignoring Oldiesgreak's balant trolling, this is actually a frequently overlooked issue. There were prominent Southern Democratic politicians that espoused pro-civil rights positions, such as Jim Folsom or Sid McMath. And there were prominent Southern Democrats that started their careers not as segregationists, but later switched positions out of political opportunism. Beside an obvious example of George Wallace, Orval Faubus comes to mind. 

I realize there were some Democrats, Southern or otherwise, who supported civil rights (Estes Kefauver comes to mind as an examplenof a pro-civil rights Southern Democrat.)  When did Wallace and/or Faubus "become" segregationists if they didn't start that way?  I know Wallace had a change of heart after the assassination attempt on him, but that doesn't really answer my question.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The guy who says the Southern Strategy was all about attracting pro-Civil Rights southerners? LOL

But it's true.  You all have just accepted revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, and that includes a lot of Republicans.  And not all Southern Democrats were racists or segregationists.

Ignoring Oldiesgreak's balant trolling, this is actually a frequently overlooked issue. There were prominent Southern Democratic politicians that espoused pro-civil rights positions, such as Jim Folsom or Sid McMath. And there were prominent Southern Democrats that started their careers not as segregationists, but later switched positions out of political opportunism. Beside an obvious example of George Wallace, Orval Faubus comes to mind. 

I realize there were some Democrats, Southern or otherwise, who supported civil rights (Estes Kefauver comes to mind as an examplenof a pro-civil rights Southern Democrat.)  When did Wallace and/or Faubus "become" segregationists if they didn't start that way?  I know Wallace had a change of heart after the assassination attempt on him, but that doesn't really answer my question.

Wallace started his career was Folsom's protege and in 1958 he ran for Governor as a moderate against KKK-backed John Patterson, while having NAACP endorsement. I guess these two Wallace's quotes sums it up well:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As of Orval Faubus, he used to be a close McMath ally and his early career he actually espoused integrationist views. Of course he sold out like Wallace in order to survive in the Dixie politically.

I don't think Wallace necessarily started out as an integrationist, but he used support for segregation to get ahead politically.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

He's been junking up Torie's board lately.......FF

Interesting reversal of where you stood earlier.  Are you flip-flopping?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Neutral. I've never had any problems with him.

He seems to be overly concerned with having people think of him as a RINO/Yankee/Rockefeller Republican, despite having the positions of a pretty standard conservative from what I've seen.

Well, I have quite a dislike and disdain for the South because of my emphasis on equality, which is why I consider myself the conservative equivalent of a Yankee Republican.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

His Southern Strategy revisionist stuff forces the HP hand... but he's probably no monster

You're the ones accepting revisionist stuff about the Southern strategy.  It would have made no sense for the GOP to pander to racists in 1968 because they were already supporng Wallace.  It would be like a Republican presidential candidate campaigning in California or Massachusetts or a Democratic presidential candidate campaigning in Texas or Utah today.  Since the bigots were safely in the Wallace column, it would have been a waste of time politically for Republicans to pursue that type of campaign.

Can I change my vote? I say neutral now. Some of the things you believe Oldies, are just plain dumb, I'm sorry.

You're a nice guy, but you are a Republican for very weird reasons.

That's not the only reason I'm a Republican.  I have plenty of other reasons why.  After all, Democrats have gone from being the party of slavery and Jim Crow to the party of drive-thru abortion clinics and suffocating taxes on businesses (the latter in the name of "fairness").  Republicans are a better ideological fit for me, and my loyaly to President Bush when he was in office (having largely come of age during his presidency) is part of it too.

Neutral. I've never had any problems with him.

He seems to be overly concerned with having people think of him as a RINO/Yankee/Rockefeller Republican, despite having the positions of a pretty standard conservative from what I've seen.

Well, I have quite a dislike and disdain for the South because of my emphasis on equality, which is why I consider myself the conservative equivalent of a Yankee Republican.

No, you just seem to be some sort of ironic bigot, thus defeating your intent.  You can't dislike an entire f***ing region of the country if you are "pro-equality", dope.  Especially when just a few days ago, you were toting the whole "well the South was misunderstood and voted Republican because they started becoming more anti-racist".

I didn't say the South became Republican because they became more anti-racist, although the South is almost certainly more Republican and anti-racist than it used to be.  I mean that there were enouh anti-racist Southerners at that time (mostly from in-migration) to help Republicans make inroads.  How do you explain the success of integrationist Southern Republicans like Winthrop Rockefeller or Howard Baker, aside from that, economic issues" and anti-communism?  And how do you explain that the South didn't become solidly Republcan in national elections until the 80s, which coincided with the shift toward the GOP among religious conservatives, which make up a large population in the South?

As for being an "ironic bigot", politics is all about perception, and when the GOP is strong in the South, it makes them look racist.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

LOL@that likeliest scenario. He might at least want to explain who is going to beat Franken, Udall or Merkley, the Republicans don't have any promising candidates.

There may not be any strong candidates yet, but don't count the GOP out in recruiting them.  And FTR, the most likely candidate to beat Mark Udall in Colorado is Jane Norton.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak1854 is a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.

I actually found this quite funny.  Thanks!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak1854 is a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.

I actually found this quite funny.  Thanks!

I hoped you'll appreciate historical reference.

Yes, I do.