DescentBB

....with apologies to Gov. Jindal:

http://www.delawareonline.com/usatoday/article/2588473

Slick continues to prove how centrist he is.

Spidey wrote:Slick continues to prove how centrist he is.

Slick is so centrist he makes TC look like Josef Stalin

there should be nothing Left or Right(or Centrist) about being stupid enough to insult citizens of the fastest growing national demographic.

Spidey wrote:Slick continues to prove how centrist he is.

Have you even heard some of the comments this guy has made? Even Boehner has come out and said it was out of line. Do Republicans even want to win elections in the future?

http://nbclatino.com/2013/07/24/top-rep ... -comments/

callmeslick wrote:there should be nothing Left or Right(or Centrist) about being stupid enough to insult citizens of the fastest growing national demographic.

But for you to only point out the stupid things done/said by members of the right makes you a partisan for the left. It's not like this was your first contribution to the 'look-what-the-stupid-party-did-now' list!
For you to be seen as centrist you would have to ...well....actually be centrist and we all know that ain't happening! Lol!

I find the thread title objectionable, but most of all I find the implication that some dumb ass speaks for an entire political party.

it isn't that this loon said goofy stuff(as pointed out already, not the first for him), it is the response of the greater party officials. This guy should not be allowed to caucus with the GOP caucus, he should be barred from central party support at primary or election time. In short, he should be thrown out of the party. Only by rejecting, publicly, such crazies, is the GOP going to have a chance. Just because this guy can sell this craziness to his faithful local base, the party has to be far more proactive or risk losing a national base. That was what Bobby Jindal noted, and tried to urge. Apparently, he failed. As for the partisanship commentary, if someone in the Dems(not the Left, the Dems, as this is about party functionality), he should be treated likewise. I have, for instance, urged the same for Anthony Weiner, and done so here.

callmeslick wrote:it isn't that this loon said goofy stuff(as pointed out already, not the first for him), it is the response of the greater party officials. This guy should not be allowed to caucus with the GOP caucus, he should be barred from central party support at primary or election time. In short, he should be thrown out of the party. Only by rejecting, publicly, such crazies, is the GOP going to have a chance. Just because this guy can sell this craziness to his faithful local base, the party has to be far more proactive or risk losing a national base. That was what Bobby Jindal noted, and tried to urge. Apparently, he failed. As for the partisanship commentary, if someone in the Dems(not the Left, the Dems, as this is about party functionality), he should be treated likewise. I have, for instance, urged the same for Anthony Weiner, and done so here.

There are plenty of similar offenders in the Dem party but you only start these 'look what the loser party said' threads about the offenders in the Repub party. Thus you appear to be partisan....

You are about as centrist as Sean Hannity.

How do you kick someone out of a political party, I didn’t think it was that kind of system.

I think about the most that can be done is to withdraw financial support by the national committee.

I don’t believe there are any legal channels available to prevent someone from caucusing or running in any primaries as a member of any given party, as long as you meet the state or local requirements.

I could be wrong, but I think it would be a very difficult process at best.

Spidey wrote:How do you kick someone out of a political party, I didn’t think it was that kind of system.

well, you don't, per se......but the party does not have an obligation to in any way support a campaign, nor permit an elected member to caucus with the party. Caucus membership is by invite-only. The party can, in some states, withold permission to use the party name on the ballot, but in most states, not.

Will Robinson wrote:There are plenty of similar offenders in the Dem party but you only start these 'look what the loser party said' threads about the offenders in the Repub party. Thus you appear to be partisan....

.

actually, I dare you to find anyone in the Dem party, actively caucusing as an elected official or representative that said anything remotely close to calling Hispanics 'wetbacks', or 'drug mules' or the like. Sorry, but the level of offensiveness simply doesn't equate. The few Dems in recent years who've said truly offensive stuff close to this level(and nothing I can recall rises to this level) have been shunned and shamed, publicly.
Moreover, I return to my core point, which is not just the stupid words, but the need to establish a party identity that is at least palatable to the largest growing segment of the electorate.

another point that gets tossed back at me, is that these sorts of morons represent states which have negative attitudes toward non-whites, yet, a deep Southern state could produce a Democrat like this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07 ... at-97?lite

where are the voices DEMANDING tolerance in the GOP? Or, are you all right with tolerating intolerance and ethnic slurs?

callmeslick wrote:another point that gets tossed back at me, is that these sorts of morons represent states which have negative attitudes toward non-whites, yet, a deep Southern state could produce a Democrat like this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07 ... at-97?lite

where are the voices DEMANDING tolerance in the GOP? Or, are you all right with tolerating intolerance and ethnic slurs?

And yet your party fully embraced Robert Byrd, KKK member extraordinaire.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There are plenty of similar offenders in the Dem party but you only start these 'look what the loser party said' threads about the offenders in the Repub party. Thus you appear to be partisan....

.

actually, I dare you to find anyone in the Dem party, actively caucusing as an elected official or representative that said anything remotely close to calling Hispanics 'wetbacks', or 'drug mules' or the like. Sorry, but the level of offensiveness simply doesn't equate. The few Dems in recent years who've said truly offensive stuff close to this level(and nothing I can recall rises to this level) have been shunned and shamed, publicly.
Moreover, I return to my core point, which is not just the stupid words, but the need to establish a party identity that is at least palatable to the largest growing segment of the electorate.

Classic slick challenge loaded with caveats that make it actually not anything close to an honest test.

Of course the Dems don't say bad things about Hispanics! They receive the majority of Hispanic votes and plan on harvesting enough new voters with the new immigration law to ensure they have a monopoly on the Whitehouse for many elections to come!!

How brave of you to put up a challenge like that!
Now try to find a similar, but much more appropriate and honest, example of Dems attacking groups they dont enjoy dogmatic support from and then you will see your beloved party is just as vicious and full of spite and prejudice as you try to paint the Repubs as being... groups like Christians, Tea Party members, etc.

You are just showing how truly partisan you really are by making such a pathetic attempt at spin.

Will Robinson wrote: Of course the Dems don't say bad things about Hispanics!

TIL: Not saying bad things about people makes you a partisan Democrat and that appealing to voters leads to a political monopoly. Those Dems sure are evil with the whole being nice to different classes of people stuff. If only the Republicans could beat them at their own game. We would have a much better country.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Of course the Dems don't say bad things about Hispanics!

TIL: Not saying bad things about people makes you a partisan Democrat and that appealing to voters leads to a political monopoly. Those Dems sure are evil with the whole being nice to different classes of people stuff. If only the Republicans could beat them at their own game. We would have a much better country.

You have completely missed the subject and context of the conversation.
Please re-read the thread until you find slick's status as to partisanship/centrist is the focus instead of a party (silly in and of itself to debate a party as being anything but partisan). You have fallen down a rabbit hole....

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:another point that gets tossed back at me, is that these sorts of morons represent states which have negative attitudes toward non-whites, yet, a deep Southern state could produce a Democrat like this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07 ... at-97?lite

where are the voices DEMANDING tolerance in the GOP? Or, are you all right with tolerating intolerance and ethnic slurs?

And yet your party fully embraced Robert Byrd, KKK member extraordinaire.

that was 50 years ago. The man did or said NOTHING in his later years to demean anyone.

and, note that I never limited my 'challenge' to speaking of Hispanics. Nor, were my ponderings about the GOP limited as such. These assclowns demean women, blacks, gays and others with words that literally NEVER get uttered by Dems. As vision sarcastically noted, what cheaters they are, trying not to piss off large blocs of fellow citizens. What kind of political party does that?

callmeslick wrote:...What kind of political party does that?

Both party's do but you, being joined at the hip to one of them, are in deep denial at best and, more likely, full of crap at worst. You know damn well your Dems spew hatred about lots of people...wasn't it Obama himself who called rural white americans 'bitter people clinging to their guns and religion'?

And regardless of how you judge the accuracy of the content, it is indisputable slick, that you only post these 'look what the dummys did' threads about ONE PARTY...not both, so you cant claim to be a non mudslinger when you have it oozing from between your fingers on a regular basis!

As to words that never get repeated by Dems'....hmmm a little more of that caveat magic at work there...but how about words they use exclusively...like "teabagger"...

And who used "the extra-chromosome right wing." in his campaign? I guess parents of Downs Syndrom children dont make up enough of a voting block to worry about huh?

Anyone that thinks the Democrats became the “majority” party (not monopoly) by being nice to people simply doesn’t understand politics or the selfish nature of the human race.

The Democrats have become the majority party by pandering to every single group one can conceive of, and trying to be everything to everyone…except those who will never be Democrats.

The problem as I see it, to compete the Republicans must forget about having a smaller list of core values and start to pander with the big boys, and if you think the government spending is out of control now, wait until both parties are promising the sky to the same demographics.

What this country needs are a few more viable parties, then things would even out a lot more.

But I do agree that the Republican Party could help itself a lot simply by not alienating groups like Hispanics, the notion that this particular group is locked into the Democratic party is absurd, Bush got something over 43% of the Hispanic vote in one election, and if you can get 43%...you can get 53%

Hispanics are very similar to conservatives in many ways, and there is the old expression…Hispanics are really Republicans, they just don’t know it yet. But of course one of the main reasons I left the Republican Party is because they suck at politics.

That was a solid post, Spiderman. I can agree the Democrats are not really nice, just smarter about not pissing people off.