Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

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.6...@yahoo.com [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 t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*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.




Tom 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

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.6...@yahoo.com [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 t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* 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 
stat

Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

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.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 


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:* "yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* 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 





image 


The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the State... 

Learn more at: http://www.civilwar.org/education/in4/ Historian Garry 
Adelman gives an overview of the causes, campaigns, an...


View on www.youtube.com 

Preview by Yahoo




yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
Friday, July 22, 2016 6:23 PM

The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the States 






image 


The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the State... 

Learn more at: http://www.civilwar.org/education/in4/ Historian Garry 
Adelman gives an overview of the causes, campaigns, an...


View on www.youtube.com 

Preview by Yahoo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Importance Of Group Meditation

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

Sure, brief 10-min group meditations were conducted in a variety of 
circumstances. However, there was NEVER any suggestion that a group 
meditation offered any benefits above and beyond a private session, at 
least none I ever heard.


dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 


Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:50 AM

Group meditations were very much part of what was offered in learning 
meditation in the old days of TM.  Group meditations were definitely a 
feature at the ™ Centers that were doing well initiating a lot of 
people. The group meditations were important to that for all the 
reasons [spiritual and then scientific] listed further below.




I find it telling that the encouragement to meditate in a group came 
only AFTER the emergence of the Siddhi flying program.


Prior to that there was no such encouragement

Those meditator group meditations became overlooked whence the TMO 
became Sidhis-centric and as the teaching of ™  fell apart once the 
more honed TM teaching movement based on initiating, group 
meditations, and residence courses got displaced by the ‘teams of 
four’ around 1977 that came everywhere to take over the local teaching 
of ™ and administrate the sidhis.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Is it necessary to meditate with the group?

Meditating as a group creates a more powerful spiritual vibration than 
meditating alone.  Amma has designed each session of the meditation 
retreat to increase the spiritual benefits to each participant.  She 
asks that we all attend every meditation together, and not meditate 
alone in our rooms.  If you would like to start meditating before the 
first session, you are welcome to come to the main meditation room and 
start early.  -Karunamayi





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

The 'Collective Meditation'


-Spiritual Regeneration Movement NEWSLETTER

May 1965

Maharishi Concludes Five World Tours


"His Holiness returned to India on 20th March, 1965 after a successful 
nine-month world tour.



..A special feature of this tour was the keen interest generated in 
scientific circles in England, Germany and America, where scientists 
are now conducting experiments to assess the effects of Deep Meditation.."




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


"An event of unique importance took place on the 28^th of March, at 
Shankaracharya Nagar, Rishikesh. The saints and Mahatmas of 
Uttarakhand assembled on the ground of the Academy of Meditation to 
invoke the benign grace and the almighty power of the gods to right 
the wrongs of today's world society."



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

..in "Duty-bound"

The "collective meditation"  of  "Deep Meditation",


"In welcoming the saints and Mahatmas, Maharishi said that the world 
today needed the intercession of the saints who are established n 
themselves and are therefore, nearer to the almighty power. The 
situation of the world now demanded of the people a powerful 
invocation of the grace of gods to fill the atmosphere with peace and 
purity. This, he said, can be effectively done by those who by long 
practice of meditation and various spiritual disciplines, had gained 
the privilege of being nearer to the seat of divine power and mercy. 
The saints of Uttarakhand therefore were in duty-bound to intercede on 
behalf of the people and invoke the grace of gods to alleviate human 
suffering."





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

"..After Maharishi had stressed the importance and purpose of the 
assembly of the Saints and Mahatmas..


Then the party entered the 84 caves of Shakaracharya Nagar, where 
collective meditation was held for one hour. So soon as everyone had 
taken their seats in the caves, the meditation started with a 
recitation of Vedic hymns, and as everyone sank deep within, nature 
herself was absorbed in silence. There was utter stillness for one 
solid hour, at the end of which, the meditation was broken by a 
recitation of vedic slokas. The saints who are accustomed to long 
meditation felt the powerful intensity of today's collective 
meditation. It was decided to continue collective meditation regularly 
every Sunday until atmospheric tension abates.”




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Anybody have short quotes from the TM movement about the value of 
group meditation?  Doing TM in a group.  Something from the old days 
of Maharishi in the time before the siddhis?


There are plenty enough of charts and pronouncement of a value for 
practicing the TM-Siddhis in a group.  How about for pre-siddhis 
meditators and group meditation?  It seems that some portion of the 
meditating community is not interested in practicing the TM-Siddhis, 
at least for that long as they do in the Domes now.


Is there a value to just meditating in a group.  Evidently Fred Travis 
has data that shows that there is a spiritual value related to 
proximity and numbers of meditators meditati

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Importance Of Group Meditation

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

I find it telling that the encouragement to meditate in a group came 
only AFTER the emergence of the Siddhi flying program.


Prior to that there was no such encouragement

dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 


Sunday, July 17, 2016 5:22 AM

Is it necessary to meditate with the group?

Meditating as a group creates a more powerful spiritual vibration than 
meditating alone.  Amma has designed each session of the meditation 
retreat to increase the spiritual benefits to each participant.  She 
asks that we all attend every meditation together, and not meditate 
alone in our rooms.  If you would like to start meditating before the 
first session, you are welcome to come to the main meditation room and 
start early.  -Karunamayi





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

The 'Collective Meditation'


-Spiritual Regeneration Movement NEWSLETTER

May 1965

Maharishi Concludes Five World Tours


"His Holiness returned to India on 20th March, 1965 after a successful 
nine-month world tour.



..A special feature of this tour was the keen interest generated in 
scientific circles in England, Germany and America, where scientists 
are now conducting experiments to assess the effects of Deep Meditation.."




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


"An event of unique importance took place on the 28^th of March, at 
Shankaracharya Nagar, Rishikesh. The saints and Mahatmas of 
Uttarakhand assembled on the ground of the Academy of Meditation to 
invoke the benign grace and the almighty power of the gods to right 
the wrongs of today's world society."



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

..in "Duty-bound"

The "collective meditation"  of  "Deep Meditation",


"In welcoming the saints and Mahatmas, Maharishi said that the world 
today needed the intercession of the saints who are established n 
themselves and are therefore, nearer to the almighty power. The 
situation of the world now demanded of the people a powerful 
invocation of the grace of gods to fill the atmosphere with peace and 
purity. This, he said, can be effectively done by those who by long 
practice of meditation and various spiritual disciplines, had gained 
the privilege of being nearer to the seat of divine power and mercy. 
The saints of Uttarakhand therefore were in duty-bound to intercede on 
behalf of the people and invoke the grace of gods to alleviate human 
suffering."





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

"..After Maharishi had stressed the importance and purpose of the 
assembly of the Saints and Mahatmas..


Then the party entered the 84 caves of Shakaracharya Nagar, where 
collective meditation was held for one hour. So soon as everyone had 
taken their seats in the caves, the meditation started with a 
recitation of Vedic hymns, and as everyone sank deep within, nature 
herself was absorbed in silence. There was utter stillness for one 
solid hour, at the end of which, the meditation was broken by a 
recitation of vedic slokas. The saints who are accustomed to long 
meditation felt the powerful intensity of today's collective 
meditation. It was decided to continue collective meditation regularly 
every Sunday until atmospheric tension abates.”




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Anybody have short quotes from the TM movement about the value of 
group meditation?  Doing TM in a group.  Something from the old days 
of Maharishi in the time before the siddhis?


There are plenty enough of charts and pronouncement of a value for 
practicing the TM-Siddhis in a group.  How about for pre-siddhis 
meditators and group meditation?  It seems that some portion of the 
meditating community is not interested in practicing the TM-Siddhis, 
at least for that long as they do in the Domes now.


Is there a value to just meditating in a group.  Evidently Fred Travis 
has data that shows that there is a spiritual value related to 
proximity and numbers of meditators meditating.




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

/Group meditation is a castle that protects the new spiritual 
aspirants as well as the veteran meditators. Meditating together 
increases the degree of Self-realization of each member of the group 
by the law of invisible vibratory exchange of group magnetism./

—Paramahansa Yogananda in /Seeking God Together//
/


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

/..Group meditations strengthen the individuals. When you're in 
meditation with other devotees you don't know how much you help one 
another. It gives you strength. There is a vibration that is created 
that strengthens, and supports, and encourages each one. So when you 
sit to meditate just remember this/.


—Sri Daya Mata on the SRF tape /Karma Yoga/

/
/


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

/Group meetings to practice the techniques of meditation are vitally 
important. Group meetings strengthen the individual Self-realization 
that one has acquired in priv

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bhutan: A piece of heaven on earth

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

I agree. I wouldn't get too rhapsodic about Bhutan.

Life expectancy is about 62, and the female literacy rate is about 10% 
(30% for males).


It is still a developing county that has a long way to go.


sri...@ymail.com 
Sunday, July 10, 2016 6:06 PM

your Heaven on Earth is a nasty place
Bhutan's ethnic cleansing 






image 


Bhutan's ethnic cleansing 

Bhutan’s image as an otherworldly and harmonious kingdom was rocked on 
20 January by coordinated bomb blasts in the capital, Thimpu, and 
three other location...


View on www.hrw.org 



Preview by Yahoo


email4you mikemail4...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 


Sunday, July 10, 2016 10:51 AM
http://www.rediff.com/getahead/report/travel-bhutan-a-piece-of-heaven-on-earth/20160217.htm

   ***

Nestled in the heart of the mighty eastern Himalayas lies a jewel; a 
speck of green that is part flower bed, and part dynamic landscape.
At first glance it appears to be a simple, small country with a 
village-based subsistence lifestyle.
Yet beneath the surface, it’s immensely rich and has a diverse 
community comprising various groups such as yak herders and the 
Nomadic Laya people, as well as royal and governmental hierarchies, 
lamas, Rinpoches, and abbots.
It is the only country in the world to have banned smoking and plastic 
bags effectively.
It took a tiny Himalayan nation to challenge the concept of Gross 
National Product as a yardstick of advancement. Ever since 2002, 
promoting happiness is a serious business in Bhutan.
The King decreed that Gross National Happiness is the primary 
objective of this Himalayan state.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

BTW, here is the one other case in which someone was prosecuted for 
gross negligence in mishandling classified material.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266

Quoting Comey:

"I know from 30 years there's no way anybody at the Department of 
Justice is bringing a case against John Doe or Hillary Clinton for the 
second time in 100 years based on those facts."

and,
"I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they 
would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to 
see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did."


Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife] 
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

Friday, July 8, 2016 7:06 AM

There is no need to paraphrase or speculate about what Comey said 
regarding Clinton lying to the public. He was asked explicitly about 
this and his answer was "That's a question I am not qualified to 
answer." When asked if she had lied to the FBI (doing so is a crime), 
he said "We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI." When 
asked if she had lied under oath to Congress, he said that they did 
not look at that because they had been given no referral by Congress 
to investigate this.


To establish that she "lied" you would have to show not merely that 
she made statements that were false. It is fairly clear that she did. 
You would also have to establish that she KNEW that the statements 
were false when she made them. So far, there has been no evidence of 
this.


The most often cited example was her claim that she never sent or 
received information that was classified at the time. The FBI 
determined that there were 110 e-mails that contained classified 
information went sent or received. However, this is out of 30,000 
e-mails and of the 110 only 3 had classified markings on them and of 
those 3 NONE had headers that indicated that they were classified (as 
they should have had). It is perfectly possible that she was simply 
mistaken when she made the claims about never sending or received 
classified material. Being mistaken is not the same as lying.



authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

Thursday, July 7, 2016 10:38 PM




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like just about the only time Judy 
makes an appearance in FairflieldLife lately, is to defend Hillary.
 Sorry, I don't see that as dedication to *truth* but dedication to 
one person.


How about dedication to whatever happens to interest me?

Just in the past couple of days, BTW, I had an exchange with John 
about the pope's suggestion that bishops and priests might make 
individual exceptions to the church's rules on communion for remarried 
people. I guess you missed that completely.


And as I pointed out but you ignored, I haven't been proselytizing for 
Hillary.


In one earlier post, I mentioned that  Comey said, in so many words, 
that Hillary lied to the public, by his denying the truthfulness of 
many of her previous statements to the public..
Judy counters with Gowdy asked Comey if she lied to the FBI in which 
Comey said *no*. "That's pretty explicit." Inferring Hillary never 
lied.. to anyone, the FBI or the public.


That may be your *inference*, but it wasn't my *implication*. (Check 
Mr. Dictionary.)







Straw-man argument. Two different  alligations.
 Hillary lied her @$$ off to the public over the past 15 months but 
*may* have told the truth to the FBI. We'll never know because she was 
never under oath, nor were her questions and answers recorded to be 
examined later.
*From:* "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:48 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Duh!
Most dedicated of True Believers. Judy could be Hillary's *Bevan Morris*.
Hillary's *skin boy*. LOL
 BTW, that's not meant to be *mean spirited*. In fact, a compliment.

Oh, you two. Judy does not strike me as a fanatical anything, let 
alone a fanatical Hillary supporter. That's sloppy reasoning and 
analysis and lazy to boot - it reminds me of the way Mr Wooden Clogs 
used to throw accusations around like slop in a pig sty. You guys can 
do better.


*From:* "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2016 11:02 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

*Hey Mike, you think that Judy might be a fanatical Hillary 
supporter?* :-D


On 07/07/2016 06:41 AM, authfriend@... <mailto:authfriend@...> 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:






M

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

This is inaccurate. Comey testified before Congress that there was only 
one other case in the 100 years since the statute was adopted that 
someone has been prosecuted for gross negligence in handling classified 
material, and that was an espionage case. All of the other cases that 
have been reported in the media as being just like hers--Bryan 
Nishimura, John Deutch, and General Petraus--were not, according to the 
FBI director.


Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 


Thursday, July 7, 2016 11:01 AM
Nonsense to your *nonsense*. I never said Comey fixed it. Yes, he is a 
straight arrow. However, he's not a prosecutor. He only recommends or 
doesn't. He investigates and  gathers facts.There are plenty of 
prosecutors that would have taken the case and claim that they would 
have had a more than  reasonable chance, if not excellent chance,  to 
win a conviction.
Numerous people have been charged and convicted of the same thing with 
less evidence.
Of course Comey didn't openly pronounce Clinton a *liar*. Very few 
people in public office ever do that. However, he openly countered 
many of the lies she had been telling the public. I'm sure you have to 
have seen them by now, split screen with him and her. She saying one 
thing with the date she said it and Comey saying she did the opposite. 
He exposed her lies to the public.
What Hillary told the FBI in private could be something entirely 
different from what she tells you and me? She can lie to you and me  
about anything she wants and has been doing but lying to the FBI in an 
investigation is another story. She definitely would have been nailed 
for doing that.
Lynch also reserved the right to go by the recommendations of her top 
attorneys, not just by what the FBI recommended. And yes, the meeting 
was intended to be secret. The FBI , that's Comey's FBI,was there and 
as a news team *got wind* of the meeting and approached, they were 
told *No cameras and no recordings*. Of course they were not allowed 
on the plane but not even allowed to photograph from outside. That's 
an attempt at secrecy.
The six pointed *red* star,  not blue or yellow, has had a little 
traction but not much. Nice little rallying cry for Jews that were 
going to vote for Hillary regardless. Far more traction than any 
twenty year old rape allegations of a  13 year old girl that still 
haven't manifested in the mainstream media, which if they carried any 
weight would have run with it by now.
However, I'll admit that there is plenty of time for each candidate to 
screw themselves and each other while everyone watches.
 I guess the big question will come down to "do you want the 
*Smartest* women in the world, who you can't trust to tell you the 
truth, to be president and keep going down the same hole or do you 
want to take a chance for some real change." Some 65% of people polled 
say we are headed in the wrong direction. Do they want Hillary's 
*stability* or do they want Trump to shake things up and chart a new 
course.


*From:* "authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:41 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Actually, I've been saying for at least a month or longer that she 
would *not* be indicted. Not because she didn't do anything wrong but 
because she would be covered and protected by the Obama 
administration. It just wasn't going to happen. The *fix* was in.


Nonsense. That's just wildly paranoid. Comey is one of that rarest of 
beasts: a straight-arrow, incorruptible Republican. He was crystal 
clear in his announcement as to why she wasn't being indicted: the 
circumstances necessary to justify an indictment didn't exist.


And it had been decided for some time that Lynch would go along with 
whatever the FBI recommended. (BTW, her meeting with Bill Clinton was 
private but not "secret.")


Yes, Comey did Hillary considerable damage. He did not, however, 
accuse her of having lied. She certainly wasn't straightforward, but 
I'm not sure she told any actual lies.


Trump has already f'd it up. His speech last night was bizarre. 
Instead of focusing on what Comey said about Hillary, he attacked 
Comey himself, and veered off that topic to defend his anti-Semitic 
retweet of the six-pointed star, which came from a white supremacist 
Web site. He said he didn't think it needed to be changed. Talk about 
a fiasco! He's totally losing it.






Obama has been saying in interviews since April, that she never risked 
national security, yada, yada, yada. Comments like that can be *seen* 
as tampering with an investigation. Just like Clinton meeting with the 
AG, in secret, on an airplane.
Quite frankly, I think Comey may have done something more dangerous 
for the Democrats. While not recommending indictment, it looked 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

[Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]]

There is no need to paraphrase or speculate about what Comey said 
regarding Clinton lying to the public. He was asked explicitly about 
this and his answer was "That's a question I am not qualified to 
answer." When asked if she had lied to the FBI (doing so is a crime), he 
said "We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI." When asked 
if she had lied under oath to Congress, he said that they did not look 
at that because they had been given no referral by Congress to 
investigate this.


To establish that she "lied" you would have to show not merely that she 
made statements that were false. It is fairly clear that she did. You 
would also have to establish that she KNEW that the statements were 
false when she made them. So far, there has been no evidence of this.


The most often cited example was her claim that she never sent or 
received information that was classified at the time. The FBI determined 
that there were 110 e-mails that contained classified information went 
sent or received. However, this is out of 30,000 e-mails and of the 110 
only 3 had classified markings on them and of those 3 NONE had headers 
that indicated that they were classified (as they should have had). It 
is perfectly possible that she was simply mistaken when she made the 
claims about never sending or received classified material. Being 
mistaken is not the same as lying.


authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 


Thursday, July 7, 2016 10:38 PM




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like just about the only time Judy 
makes an appearance in FairflieldLife lately, is to defend Hillary.
 Sorry, I don't see that as dedication to *truth* but dedication to 
one person.


How about dedication to whatever happens to interest me?

Just in the past couple of days, BTW, I had an exchange with John 
about the pope's suggestion that bishops and priests might make 
individual exceptions to the church's rules on communion for remarried 
people. I guess you missed that completely.


And as I pointed out but you ignored, I haven't been proselytizing for 
Hillary.


In one earlier post, I mentioned that  Comey said, in so many words, 
that Hillary lied to the public, by his denying the truthfulness of 
many of her previous statements to the public..
Judy counters with Gowdy asked Comey if she lied to the FBI in which 
Comey said *no*. "That's pretty explicit." Inferring Hillary never 
lied.. to anyone, the FBI or the public.


That may be your *inference*, but it wasn't my *implication*. (Check 
Mr. Dictionary.)







Straw-man argument. Two different  alligations.
 Hillary lied her @$$ off to the public over the past 15 months but 
*may* have told the truth to the FBI. We'll never know because she was 
never under oath, nor were her questions and answers recorded to be 
examined later.
*From:* "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:48 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Duh!
Most dedicated of True Believers. Judy could be Hillary's *Bevan Morris*.
Hillary's *skin boy*. LOL
 BTW, that's not meant to be *mean spirited*. In fact, a compliment.

Oh, you two. Judy does not strike me as a fanatical anything, let 
alone a fanatical Hillary supporter. That's sloppy reasoning and 
analysis and lazy to boot - it reminds me of the way Mr Wooden Clogs 
used to throw accusations around like slop in a pig sty. You guys can 
do better.


*From:* "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2016 11:02 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

*Hey Mike, you think that Judy might be a fanatical Hillary 
supporter?* :-D


On 07/07/2016 06:41 AM, authfriend@...  
[FairfieldLife] wrote:






Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 


Thursday, July 7, 2016 9:39 PM
LOL. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like just about the only time Judy 
makes an appearance in FairflieldLife lately, is to defend Hillary.
 Sorry, I don't see that as dedication to *truth* but dedication to 
one person.
In one earlier post, I mentioned that  Comey said, in so many words, 
that Hillary lied to the public, by his denying the truthfulness of 
many of her previous statements to the public..
Judy counters with Gowdy asked Comey if she lied to the FBI in which 
Comey said *no*. "That's pretty explicit." Inferring Hillary never 
lied.. to anyone, the FBI or the public.

Straw-man argument. Two different  alligations.
 Hillary lied her @$$ off to the public over the past 15 months but 
*may* have told the truth to the FBI. We'll never know because she was 
never under oath, nor were her questions and answers recorded to be 
examined later.
*Fro