Yes, once again the do nothing Republicans would've been perfectly happy to keep racial segregation in place, with third rate everything for people with a different color skin. This is the way the Republicans operate - They don't. Just like big steaming piles of crap in the way of getting anything done. Then they sit back on their ample rumps and criticize away. Must be good work if you can get it.
Of all those slamming the Democrats on FFL, not one of you do nothings has mentioned anything the Republicans have done in the last twenty five years. They are the party of ceaseless criticism and inertia - the bullies and blowhards who accomplish exactly zero. So insult and exaggerate all you want, keeping in mind that at least the opposition has done something to draw your criticism. Like a bunch of anti-patriotic spoiled brats who always want their way of the highway, but can't get enough of their tiny little minds together to accomplish anything. With this ongoing attitude of cynicism and resistance, the Republican Party is done. And let's just dismiss Mr. trump right now. The guy has as much chance of making Prez in 2016 as I do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : You can deny, deny, deny, all you want. But if you honestly examine the effects these policies have had on the black family since the early sixties, you can't deny it. 70% illegitimacy rate today, whereas before the sixties, it was less than 20%. One parent households have been disastrous for the black community, leading to higher rates of crime, gang activity, drug use and violence, dooming extremely high numbers of young black men to lives in the criminal justice system and poverty. Yes, a percentage are lifted up but I seriously doubt it is because of the policies but rather in spite of them. It has always been that way. Some people rise regardless of their circumstances. But the poverty rate today is almost no different today than it was before the implementation of the *Great Society*, who's *reported* intent was to eradicate poverty. But these policies have not just effected black families, it is trickling through out the rest of society as well. When you combine this with the quotes I made earlier from LBJ, which are well documented, "I have to give them something, not enough to make a difference, just enough to keep them quiet and I'll have *niggers* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". Well... I don't know what else you can call that. It speaks for it's self. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes No, Mike, it's not true. It's a lie generated by a hateful mind with no conscience. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : You may find it despicable but never the less it's true. The fact that it is true, makes it particularly despicable. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes It's what *you* are doing and D'Souza is doing. I'm not denying any historical facts; I'm pointing out that your framing and interpretation of those facts is seriously distorted. This is particularly despicable: a welfare system to tear black families apart, keep them in ghettos and killing each other and make them dependent on their Democratic masters. In any case, whatever the historical situation, the *current* party of racism is unquestionably the Republicans, specifically Trump Republicans; the statistics on Trump voters' views on race are appalling. And as for Trump himself: Is Donald Trump a Racist? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html Is Donald Trump a Racist? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html Clues come from decades of words and actions. View on www.nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Oh, I see your point and that is part of the process, deny deny deny and accuse the accuser, which you are doing now.However, you can't deny historical facts. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : That is part of the con. When you get busted, you adamantly deny your involvement and role in the con , and point a finger of accusation at the person that busted you and say" it's their fault, not mine. Don't look at me, look at him"! Do you truly not realize that you (and D'Souza) are doing precisely what you just described? The Democrats are the party of racism. They perpetuated slavery, set up Dread Scot laws , segregation and Jim Crow laws(everyone of them passed by Democratic legislatures and signed by Democratic governors), lynchings, the Ku Klux Klan,( who's founder, Nathan Bedford Forest, was a Democratic party delegate),eugenics, a welfare system to tear black families apart, keep them in ghettos and killing each other and make them dependent on their Democratic masters. Look at the state of the black family today and tell me they are better off than they were before the Great Society. You drank the kool-aid and don't even know it. From: "Tom Huffman tom@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes This is fascinating. Conservatives used to hide their racism by using code phrases like "states rights", but in the era of Trump it has out and proud completely in the open. This despicable post is a an excellent example of the genre. Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:19 AM 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@... mailto:tom@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto: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. Tom Huffman mailto:tom@... Saturday, July 23, 2016 8:44 PM 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. 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. 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
