Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suggest that you actually read the link from the library of congress because it clearly states in the early 1860's he changed party affiliation to the Union Party.
In 1860 Pacheco took an extended trip to Europe. He returned to California in the summer of 1861, just in time to start campaigning as a Republican for a seat in the California State Senate
Now you can sit here and wanna debate that he wasnt actually a republican all day long but you have no proof that he wasnt. While I've proved proof that he was a member of the union party in 1860 and then in 1861 he ran as a republican. But for some reason it seems impossible to you that something might have happened while in Europe and he changed parties. Something that never ever happens
This convo is over as far as I'm concerned. If you have any further issue please take it up with the Library of congress
Let me see--you are asserting that he was a member of the Union Party, and that I am wrong for asserting that he was a member of the Union Party.
True -- the Republican Party has undergone a full blown cultural revolution of the sort that Mao would be proud of. All of the "RINOs" have been ran out, leaving only the tinfoil crank crowd who are still demanding even purer forms of ideological conformity. The Big Tent party has become the Big Top party -- it doesn't even have room for a three-ring circus, just one ring for the clowns.
The democrats think they are the big tent party, but all they really represent are the folks on the public dole. But they are not representing senors on Social Security and Medicare because they are ransacking SS with the payroll tax cut, and ransacking Medicare with 500 Billion in cuts to fund Obamacare. They are not representing the middle class who will be stuck paying for the chief clowns big spending circus act.
The democrats think they are the big tent party, but all they really represent are the folks on the public dole. But they are not representing senors on Social Security and Medicare because they are ransacking SS with the payroll tax cut, and ransacking Medicare with 500 Billion in cuts to fund Obamacare. They are not representing the middle class who will be stuck paying for the chief clowns big spending circus act.
So by your inteligent assertion, all those that vote Democrat are on some form of public assistance? I just want to ensure I understand your mindset.
Putting people into cabinet offices is not really striking a blow for civil rights. I mean clinton put the first woman into the position of sec state but you don't hear me trumpeting that.
Please get me started on this research project. Provide me with examples of how Republicans championed the rights of women and minorities in the 1960s and beyond. Explain to me how the "southern strategy" engineered in response to LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act wasn't launched at all. I'd love to hear this "forgotten history" about how the Republicans valiantly fought for minority rights in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
Republicans did more for women and minorities by providing a growing economy so they could excel. Nixon ended the democrats war in SE Asia. Reagan started a twenty year period of growth with his tax cut and pro business economic plan. Bush kept all of us safe from additional terrorist attacks and had a successful tax cut policy endorsed by Obama.
Inequality is behind us now. All Americans need to be treated the same.
And one of the survivors is basically a "FDR Democrat". I won't say the Republicans have not overreached, as the Pelosi led Democrats did before them. Of the three you mentioned only one could be labeled an extremist.
You're right about Gingrich. However, the only reason why he has made it this far in the Big Top is because most are too stupid to know that he's an FDR Democrat. They just listen to the braying carnival barkers who pass as newsmen these days and believe that Gingrich is some sort of rightwing Cicero. If any of them bothered to have an original thought and read a passage or two of some real news, they'd quickly see the error of their ways and drop Gingrich like a hot potato.
I'd also agree with you that the unholy trinity of Trump, Bachmann and Cain only contains one extremists; however, it has three clowns, making it perfectly suitable for the Big Top.
Your very first cite is incorrect. Pacheco was not California's governor in 1863. He was serving in the Union army. And in 1863 Pacheco was not a Republican.
Hispanic Americans in Congress -- Pacheco
"1860 Pacheco took an extended trip to Europe. He returned to California in the summer of 1861, just in time to start campaigning as a Republican for a seat in the California State Senate. He won the election,
He became governor in 1875 as a republican.
Last edited by rikoshaprl; 02-20-2012 at 03:09 PM..
Good work, DC. I forget one should never take RNC "facts" at face value. They must always be fact-checked.
Maybe you should fact check your fellow liberal posters "facts " before commenting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... and nothing of note in the last 50 years?!?!
