The official Oldiesfreak thread

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

Mother of god, you're right.  Profile changed to reflect this inherent political trait.  How did I not see this sooner?  

[Donerail]

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.

Mother of god, you're right.  Profile changed to reflect this inherent political trait.  How did I not see this sooner?  

New Jersey voted for McClellan in 1864 .

[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.

[Cryptic]

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?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This guy is clearly a RINO.

[RogueBeaver]

Maybe Jane Swift would be better?

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[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.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

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.

[Cryptic]

The Democratic Party was found in the 1820's, decades before the Jim Crow laws in the South.  The Democratic Party was founded as a result of a split in the Democratic-Republican party with one faction, the Democrats taking a populist route.  While it is true many Democrats from the end of Reconstruction to about the mid-20th century were supports of segregation and played on racial tension, it is not true that Jim Crow shaped the very foundation and philosophy of the party, as you claim.  Rather, it was a horrible and repugnant decision taken by the party in the aftermath of the Civil War, but it was not part in the party’s foundation. 

No one is disagreeing with you that Democrats were segregationists in the past, but the idea that this unfortunate past is somehow irrevocably tied to everything the Party still does is plain wrong.  It would be the equivalent of me saying the Republican Party is intrinsically tied to homophobia forever, because of the actions of some Republican politicians today and in recent history, pushing for gay marriage bans.  I strongly disagree with the Republicans on this issue.  That being said, for me to say that everything the Republicans do from now to the end of time is somehow influenced by this horrible position is wrong and I would never make that claim. 

You see, here is the thing.  The beliefs and ideologies of people, groups, and even entire organizations can change over time.  Should we hold all Germans born today as responsible for the actions their country took in WWII?  Should we hold all Americans responsible for the actions our ancestors took against Native Americans, actions politicians of BOTH parties supported?  I hope you can see why I think that it is ridiculous to say that everything we do is somehow a reflection of the past, especially if we’ve changed. 

Judging by your posting history, I somehow feel posting this is a pointless exercise on my part.  I know people with deeply-held beliefs are very unlikely to change them based on a post from some stranger on a discussion forum, and your beliefs seem deeply-held.  Still, I hope what I said at least provides something for you to reflect on. 

[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.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.)

Read bolded line again my friend.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

On the surface, direct popular vote seems fairer, but if you don't live in a big state like California, Texas, New York, or Florida, then you would have virtually no say in that system.

Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

In a direct popular vote, one vote is one vote, regardless of whether you live in New York City or Hooterville. Let's compare the two systems. Let's say the Republican wins Wyoming by ten thousand votes and the Democrat wins California by ten thousand votes. With a direct popular vote, the election is tied at this point. But in the Electoral College, the Democrat leads 55-3. That means that the ten thousand voters who made the difference in California are over eighteen times as powerful as the ten thousand voters who made the difference in Wyoming. This does not resemble anything even remotely fair. And if you bothered to watch the video that FallenMorgan posted, you'd know that the 100 most populous cities in America amount to less than 20% of the population, proving the absurdity of the argument that big cities would dominate presidential elections in a popular vote system.

Not true.  Big states would be even more powerful than they are now under popular vote.  For example, a candidate could carry California, lose every other state, and still win the election because California has so many more people.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

Black Democrat clinching the nomination of that RACIST party?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

One of the most massive HPs ever to set foot in Congress.  A bad comedian, a potty mouth, and an election thief who honestly is too extreme to be taken seriously in politics.  And ironically, he is also one of the lying liars who tells lies that he's so fond of putting down.

[Kitteh]

One of the most massive HPs ever to set foot in Congress.  A bad comedian, a potty mouth, and an election thief who honestly is too extreme to be taken seriously in politics.  And ironically, he is also one of the lying liars who tells lies that he's so fond of putting down.

Is this Oldiesfreak?

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

...

...




...




...



I give up.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

Yeah, how dared that BLACK mother#&@$er run as a DEMOCRAT?! Where's the gratitude for Lincoln for freeding the slaves?!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We'll miss you, but if you care about equal rights so much, they why aren't you still a Republican like me?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPxBs7d1Es0

[Kitteh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPxBs7d1Es0

FTR, this was my idea, I posted it in the IRC and Snowstalker stole it