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.
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.
YOU stated he was governor in 1863. See YOUR OP. You were wrong. And he campaigned for a seat on the Republican ticket. But he was a member of the Union Party in 1863.
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.
Gee if you want to mock my intelligence at least spell correctly.
Obama is looking for votes from the highly educated elite limousine liberals and the under educated.
He won with a top-and-bottom coalition, carrying voters with incomes over $200,000 and under $50,000 and losing those in between. He carried voters with graduate school degrees and those with no high school diplomas and ran only even with the others.
Never said he wasnt a member of the union party, I said he changed parties.
Now once again if you dispute this take it up with the library of congress
I never said he didn't change parties. You just aren't familiar with the Union Party in California at that time, and won't admit that I was perfectly accurate in my original post.
These multi-post arguments over minutia are usually a good sign that someone is way off the scent.
It's a diversion -- true. You don't need to argue over someone's party affiliation in the 1860s to prove that the Republican Party has clearly been the party of bigotry since the 1960s -- and the Democratic Party was the party of bigotry before that time. I don't wish to paint all Republicans since 1960 with the broad brush of bigot (or all of the Democrats before 1960), but clearly the bigots have found their natural home in the Grand Old Parody of Lincoln's Party for the past several decades. Even the timeline, which was generated by the RNC, displays this ... its silence on the period after the mid 1950s speaks volumes. And I'm sorry... that bald little fact about the Taliban in 2001 is a very shabby cover for the GOP's bigotted strategies and policies during the modern era.
Gee if you want to mock my intelligence at least spell correctly.
Obama is looking for votes from the highly educated elite limousine liberals and the under educated.
He won with a top-and-bottom coalition, carrying voters with incomes over $200,000 and under $50,000 and losing those in between. He carried voters with graduate school degrees and those with no high school diplomas and ran only even with the others.
So that would be the majority of voters in this country? Hmmm....
How does ending the war in SE Asia help minorities/Women here in the U.S?
Reagan increased taxes 11 times AND gave 5 million illegal immigrants amnesty. As far as Bush tax cuts, are you serious? The success of the tax cuts are still debatable.
Do you know how many blacks were killed in Vietnam? Are you saying that we did not have a good economy from 1982 to 2000? Are you saying 6 million jobs were not created in the 5 years after Bush's tax cuts ?
The Democratic Party isn't a big tent party, but at least it's not a Big Top one either. We still nominate serious men and women for high offices. (We have our clowns too, but the lunatics aren't running the asylum.)
Reid, Frank and Pelosi are lunatics. The only chance this country has of overcoming our debt crisis is if the bills in the house can get passed in some form. That is where the brains are today.
What are you talking about. Read what I said about the 13th amendment. I did not assert who wrote it, just that most democrats opposed it and that republicans overwhelmingly supported it.
2nd strike for you!
I'm thinking you cut and paste from somewhere else.
1.The First Hispanic Governor was a Republican, in 1863, Romualdo Pacheco of CA
2.Republicans freed the slaves,Republicans passed the 13th Amendment unanimously – against nearly unanimous Democrat opposition
1st statement was wrong. Pacheco was not Governor in 1863.
2nd statement wrong. It wasn't "nearly unanimous Democrat opposition".
I think it's two strikes for you. When I get some more time, I'll go through the rest of the list and we'll probably have a few more strikes.
Are you saying that we did not have a good economy from 1982 to 2000?
Quote:
Are you saying 6 million jobs were not created in the 5 years after Bush's tax cuts ?
Well... yeah. In retrospect, a lot of those "gains" turned out to be due to temporary bubbles. Eg, the tech bubble at the end of the 1990's, or the housing bubble during Bush's second term (which finally deflated just as he was leaving office).
There seems to be an implicit (sometimes explicit) argument in all these types of posts that if we just all voted for one particular party, things would be fantastic, and if we don't, they'll be terrible.
"Things" tend to be driven by far longer-term and wider-scale economic and social trends than any political party is capable of controlling, managing, or predicting.
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.
