Yes, a near endless parade of losers and malcontents, nursed at the teat of Fox news and hate radio. Whiny little children who keep insisting their incoherent fantasy of America is the Right One. Pathetic, and flaming out quickly. It will be interesting to watch them all act out like two year olds when a woman is elected President.
The problem is a complete inability to learn or adjust. First they tried Bush who fucked things up so badly, he and Cheney practically ended civilization as we know it, including bringing about the worst attack ever on American soil. Then their answer to that complete debacle is...Trump. They can't seem to get a clue, except to prop up garbage 'exposes' on whomever they don't like. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Mike is just parroting what he picked up from a film by an exceedingly scummy right-winger and convicted felon named Dinesh D'Souza: ‘Hillary’s America’ lacks historical truths http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jul/22/hillarys-america-lacks-historical-truths/ http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jul/22/hillarys-america-lacks-historical-truths/ ‘Hillary’s America’ lacks historical truths http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jul/22/hillarys-america-lacks-historical-truths/ Dinesh D’Souza picked a perfect time to release the documentary “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” coming out on the h... View on www.columbian.com http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jul/22/hillarys-america-lacks-historical-truths/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : Is this the latest dodge from the Republicans? You would think cramps would've set in long ago from all the impotent finger-pointing they do. Republicans these days are all about pointing out failures and issues with the actions of the opposition party and candidates, having accomplished nothing but failure themselves. It is so empty-headed to simply focus on the drumbeat of supposed negative actions by those they oppose, much of it exaggerated for effect. What a party of emptiness, nothingness, and loss. No message, and no candidate, only hatred and opposition. It won't get them far. America doesn't have to become great again. It already is, and simply because a bunch of bigots can't deal with the ongoing legacy of consensus in this country, and a black guy as President, they make it out that the country is in the worst shape ever, being led by criminals, etc. Bunch of racists and misogynists spreading a hateful message. The air is leaking from that balloon rapidly, and will never sustain a party based on such low values. Looks like Clinton in November, no problem. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Identifying 1980 as the beginning of the GOP stranglehold on the South is not historically accurate. It started in 1964 with Goldwater. In 1968 the South went for George Wallace. In 1972 the South went for Nixon. Carter's 1976 victory is the ONLY election since 1960 in which the Democratic candidate won a majority of the states in the deep South. The *Jig* was up for the Democrats by 1964.The party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, eugenics,couldn't continue. The Supreme Court was shutting down segregation. It had to revamp. The scam had to change in order to stay alive. Lyndon B. Johnson noted that there were more blacks registering to vote in Texas than whites. He said" I have to give them something, not much, but enough to keep them quiet. I'll have niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." He began his Great Society campaign. He created the Welfare system, with welfare checks, food stamps, section 8 housing etc. All a woman had to do was raise her family without a man. No husband, no male roll model in the house. Thus he recreated the *new* slave plantation. The new massa was the federal government with the intent of keeping it run by Democrats. Do as I say if you want to keep what you've got. These benefits were also extended to the newly arriving immigrants and this is the purpose of new immigration reform, to insure another 10-20 million new Democratic voters. It's all a scam for political power for self enrichment. The people receiving these benefits rarely rise out of their station and go from one generation to the next while the Party bosses thrive. You ever know a politician to retire *not* significantly better ff than when he was first elected? What is the state of poverty today as opposed to 1964? About the same. From: "Tom Huffman tom@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes I didn't mention it because that was a remnant of a Republican Party that no longer exists. Just like the Democratic Party, the Republicans were split between between Northern and Midwestern liberals and moderates (the true descendents of Lincoln) on one side and conservatives on the other. Starting in 1964, and becoming fully realized in the Reagan years, the conservatives completely took over the party. Goldwater lost the election, but he was enthusiastically supported by Ronald Reagan (who campaigned for him), and like Goldwater Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The hostility expressed towards civil rights was a minority opinion in the Republican Party of 1964, but by 1980 the Goldwater/Reagan wing completely controlled the Party and the Northern Republican party had all but disappeared (there is not a single GOP House member remaining from New England). "Goldwater was never elected and the Republican party distanced themselves from him since." Where did you get the idea that the GOP has "distanced" itself from Barry Goldwater? Nothing could be further from the truth. Goldwater inaugurated the movement that Reagan inherited, which then completely took over the Party. Far from distancing themselves from him, Goldwater is correctly viewed as a founding father of the modern conservative movement. "More Republicans, who were the minority party, voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats." Nope. Look it up. In the Senate 45 Democrats voted for it, compared to 27 Republicans. In the House 153 Democrats voted for it, compared to 136 Republicans. However, aside from these numbers, the important point is that ALL of the Democratic No votes came from the South, the inheritors of the Southern Democratic Party of 1860. This wing of the party no longer exists. It has been completely taken over by Republicans, initially led by Strom Thurmond (another famous segregationist) who switched parties in 1964. Denying that the GOP took over what used to be the Southern Democratic Party because only 1% switched parties is just silly. Very few politicians formally switch parties. It is a rare event for ANY reason. That has nothing to do with the historical transformation of the Parties that began in 1964. All of the examples you provide of Republican support for and Democratic opposition to civil rights occur well before 1980. Those political parties are dead and have been for 45 years. Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Saturday, July 23, 2016 8:48 AM Of course you didn't mention that the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have passed without Republican support, nor the Voting Rights Act or Women's Suffrage . More Republicans, who were the minority party, voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.Goldwater was never elected and the Republican party distanced themselves from him since. George Wallace was a life long Democrat. It's commonly said by Democrats that all the Southern segregationist Democrats became Republicans. Dinesh D'Souza points out in his film that actually only about 1% of them did. The rest *died on the vine* as Southern Democratic strategies changed..The south went strongly Republican as a result of the failed Jimmy Carter administration. They've been strong Republican states since, with the exception of two Southern white boys named Clinton and Gore who brought those states back to the Republican party. The only thing that the Republicans would have in common with Jefferson Davis is a belief in a strong tenth amendment, limitations of the federal government. Davis would never have supported abolition,full civil rights and full citizenship for former slaves, Women's Suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Federal troops enforcing integration of the Little Rock Schools. These were targeted means of limiting the tenth amendment, strongly supported by Republicans with strong opposition by Democrats. From: "Tom Huffman tom@... mailto:tom@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes The Democratic Party was split in 1860 between the Northern and Southern Democrats. The main point of contention was the status of slavery in the western territories. The Southern Democrats wanted to ensure the right to own slaves in the territories, and potential new states. The Northern Democrats wanted to leave the issue of slavery up to the residents of the territory. Thus, saying that the Democratic Party "supported slavery" and "expansion of the slave states" is an accurate description of the Southern Democratic Party only, the party of secession. However, the Northern Democrats did support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, though even Lincoln's record on this is mixed. The act was not repealed until 1864, and it was sporadically enforced throughout Lincoln's first term. Yes, the Republicans "were" the abolitionist party, with emphasis on the past tense. Starting in 1964, however, the GOP underwent a profound transformation. Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act resulted in the Republicans winning Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the first time the GOP had won the deep South in a Presidential election since Reconstruction. In 1968 the same states mostly voted for George Wallace, at the time an unrepentant segregationist. Since then, the deep South has been solidly Republican, with the exception of 1976 and 1992 when 2 Democratic Southern governors (Carter and Clinton) were able to attract significant southern support. The Republican Party may have began as the party of Lincoln. However, for the last 50 years it has been the party of Jefferson Davis. Tom Huffman mailto:tom@... Saturday, July 23, 2016 1:28 AM The Democratic Party was split in 1860 between the Northern and Southern Democrats. The main point of contention was the status of slavery in the western territories. The Southern Democrats wanted to ensure the right to own slaves in the territories, and potential new states. The Northern Democrats wanted to leave the issue of slavery up to the residents of the territory. Thus, saying that the Democratic Party "supported slavery" and "expansion of the slave states" is an accurate description of the Southern Democratic Party only, the party of secession. However, the Northern Democrats did support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, though even Lincoln's record on this is mixed. The act was not repealed until 1864, and it was sporadically enforced throughout Lincoln's first term. Yes, the Republicans "were" the abolitionist party, with emphasis on the past tense. Starting in 1964, however, the GOP underwent a profound transformation. Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act resulted in the Republicans winning Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the first time the GOP had won the deep South in a Presidential election since Reconstruction. In 1968 the same states mostly voted for George Wallace, at the time an unrepentant segregationist. Since then, the deep South has been solidly Republican, with the exception of 1976 and 1992 when 2 Democratic Southern governors (Carter and Clinton) were able to attract significant southern support. The Republican Party may have began as the party of Lincoln. However, for the last 50 years it has been the party of Jefferson Davis. Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Friday, July 22, 2016 7:58 PM Dinesh D'Souza goes much deeper into this in his new film,"Hillary's America". The Republicans were the abolitionist party and the Democrats were the party of the status quo, who supported slavery and the return of runaway slaves to their owners and the expansion of slave states.. From: "yifuxero@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the States https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the State... Learn more at: http://www.civilwar.org/education/in4/ http://www.civilwar.org/education/in4/ Historian Garry Adelman gives an overview of the causes, campaigns, an... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c Preview by Yahoo yifuxero@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Friday, July 22, 2016 6:23 PM The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the States https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the State... Learn more at: http://www.civilwar.org/education/in4/ http://www.civilwar.org/education/in4/ Historian Garry Adelman gives an overview of the causes, campaigns, an... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c Preview by Yahoo
