Way to represent, GOP!!!

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You're being dishonest in that you say the NAACP is about skin color and not ideology. Politics is about ideology, not race.

But then, the Dems would surely address the KKK if invited, wouldn't they? After all, that is an organization of white people.

heaven help you if you can't tell the difference between the KKK and NAACP.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

heaven help you if you can't tell the difference between the KKK and NAACP.

Cali Coug was the one who said it was about skin color. I was just using an extreme example to prove how ridiculous that is.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The KKK is about ideology. Not a good example. And ChinoCoug is right- heaven help you if you can't see the difference.

If you honestly think I don't know the difference, well, that's in your mind only.

My point is still valid.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you know there is a difference, then what is your point? You were trying to equate the two and now you acknowledge that the two are distinct.

My point is that the NAACP is about ideology, not skin color. The Dems not addressing the KKK is no different than the GOP not addressing the NAACP.

When you draw lines based on color, you're doing nobody any favors.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Once again equating the KKK with the NAACP.

How in the world can you ever claim there is no difference? First of all, your example suggests that the GOP would actually address the KKK. Obviously, that would be absurd. They never would for obvious reasons. The Dems do and will continue to address the NAACP because it has nothing in common with an organization like the KKK. Republicans have addressed them in the past (until Bush turned their invitation down in 2004). The NAACP is the largest African American organization in the United States. It represents the interests of millions of Americans. To ignore them is arrogance.

Look, I despise the KKK but I didn't imply that the GOP would address it. If you understood it that way, then that was your doing.

What does the NAACP represent? Millions of black people and they address issues that are in the best interest of black people, right?

Isn't that what the KKK does? Address issues that are in the best interest for bigoted white people?

I'm just saying that the two groups are similar in that they want what's best for them. Isn't that true?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is the job of blacks to "attract the attention of the GOP?" Are you serious? So there isn't any chance that the GOP isn't getting the black vote because they may be doing something wrong (like refusing to speak to the largest black association in America, for example). Instead, it must be the blacks' fault for not getting the GOP excited to talk to them!

I'm not the first person (nor has it been only whites) to observe that the blacks have been wholly in the back pocket of the Democrat party, to the extent that the Democrats have taken them entirely for granted.

I did say, in case you didn't notice, that the GOP has to do a better job of outreach. But ultimately political parties respond to constituencies and not the other way around. Surely a brilliant political observer such as yourself recognizes this.

The NAA"L"CP is nothing more than an arm of the Democrat party. No reason for the GOP to go into "enemy" territory to be heckled and mocked by a bunch of people who have already decided to vote against you before you've ever opened your mouth.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Maybe I will just read Rush Limbaugh's statements on the matter so I can at least spare myself of listening to your paraphrasing of his thoughts as if they were your own.

You certainly could. It wouldn't make this response any less of a dodge, however.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You certainly could. It wouldn't make this response any less of a dodge, however.

Political parties respond to constituencies AND constituencies respond to political parties. To pretend it is all a one way street is disingenuous to say the least.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Political parties respond to constituencies AND constituencies respond to political parties. To pretend it is all a one way street is disingenuous to say the least.

Then I guess it's good I didn't pretend that, isn't it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Then I guess it's good I didn't pretend that, isn't it.

"But ultimately political parties respond to constituencies and not the other way around."

You need to read your own statements again. You didn't so much "pretend it" as state it as a fact.