Majority Whip Steve Scalise Pal-ling Around with white supremacist

What was the content of his conversation with them? It's ok to talk to groups you don't agree with. That's kind of an essential part of being a politician.

 

Why are you trying to associate this with Sarah Palin?

 

For better or worse, I can see white moderates having gotten numb to these types of "outrages;" particularly gen-X and Y voters who don't have the same regrets or anxieties about historical segregation as boomers and GIs. If anything, whites probably relate more to the anxiety of having said or done the wrong thing racially than to that of feeling discriminated against or marginalized by similar comments. If Scalise can craft a statement that sufficiently conveys the former perspective, and conservative operatives can effectively publicize incidents of Democratic politicians speaking to immoderate organizations, he might galvanize the party and his district constituency well enough to retain his seat long term.

 

Black Panthers, Westboro Baptist Church, NAMBLA?

 

You don't remember when Palin came after Obama for "paling around" with terrorist Bill Ayers?

Just chiming in to help clarify the conversation. Personally I think both Democrats and Republicans are enemies to mankind and should be treated like rabid dogs by the entire populace -- but that's just me.

 

this is great. lol. :grin:

 

Not really impressed. Headlines like these are just code for anti-white.

 

How do you figure that? Headlines like these just show how the nice and clean parties of today are not as far away as they like to pretend from their KKK protecting, segregation supporting past -- which, is only a handful of decades in the past anyway.

People like to pretend we have such an enlightened government, but we live in an oligarchy with an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor, and race baiting corrupt rulers who use wedge issues like fear of minorities to trick working class people into voting and acting against their own interests.

tl;dr -- if you are fine with having governmental leaders who associate with fascistic groups, then there is either something wrong with your moral compass or your intelligence.

 

I do, it was six ******* years ago and really not related to this at all.

 

A "handful of decades" is actually a pretty big amount of time for mortal humans.

 

I'm betting you are not surprised to see ole pouhe in here downplaying the significance of the House majority whip having given a speech at a conference for white supremacists? LOL. Merry New Year!

 

It is related to this in the sense that Republicans were all up in arms about Obama associating with left wing extremists, and thus this shows their hypocrisy in defending Republicans who associate with Right wing extremists. Of course, Democrats are terrible hypocrites and wretches too -- but, for you to ignore the obvious connection here is willful ignorance or partisan blinders.

Not really. You should have a more historical perspective of things. Societies do not change as fast as your ADD attention span seems to think it does.

 

Yep. Which is exactly equivalent to congregating with white supremacist who lynch people, burn churches, plot to blow up federal buildings and assassinate presidents, and or plot to overthrow the government... insert sarcastic font here

Lol... That's ridiculous.

 

If you think my comment was meant as a defense of the Republicans than you have massively misunderstood the context and meaning of my posts in this thread.

And, for the record, associating with Ayers gave me more respect for Obama, not less. It was when he distanced himself from Ayers and then continued so many of the policies of the Republicans he replaced that he lost my respect.

 

Where to draw the line?

Personally, I don't care much for this line of political attack, whether its directed towards a Democrat or a Republican. Judge them on the content of what they are saying and their agenda, not on who they are willing to talk to.

The notion that talking to a group is the same thing as tacit approval of what that group stands for is simply wrong, IMO.

 

judge politicians on what they vote on, not what they say. Talks cheap.

 

Sure, I agree.