Romney a hit at the Naacp

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by mezz

You missed the point of the discussion.

Did I really need to dumb it down to "a past presidential election where the vote was split 96% to 4% for the non-black democrat" for you finnbow?

1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%

Close enough.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mezz

You missed the point of the discussion.

Did I really need to dumb it down to "a past presidential election where the vote was split 96% to 4% for the non-black democrat" for you finnbow?

That wasn't your original question, Mezz. You never mentioned the race of the candidate, only the party. It really is lame to have to go back and reinvent your question after it gets blown out of the water. I know. It must be tough to be wrong when your whole life revolves around over-compensating for your innate feelings of inadequacy.

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by mezz

Not sure what the polls you are seeing are saying (because you of course didn't cite any) but I'm certainly willing to entertain that there is conflicting poll data around if indeed there is, but of course I haven't seen any so until some data is presented or that poll is taken again, it's 96%.

Only one poll matters. You're claiming that 96% of blacks are racist. That says everything about you.

[beej]

Since I am neither liberal nor conservative, neither Republican nor Democrat, I will merely pose one question: If Romney wasn't baiting the audience at the NAACP Convention then why did he use the term 'Obamacare?'

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by beej

Since I am neither liberal nor conservative, neither Republican nor Democrat, I will merely pose one question: If Romney wasn't baiting the audience at the NAACP Convention then why did he use the term 'Obamacare?'

I don't see your point here. Legislation sometimes gets an informal name associated with the administration that passed it. Are you suggesting that Obama's "blackness" somehow overwhelms the importance of the office he holds. One would think that one supporting PPACA would be proud of the Obamacare appellation. Do you think that if the PPACA was overwhelmingly popular that anyone would suggest that using the term Obamacare invokes a notion of race baiting?

[beej]

Legislation indeed frequently gets an informal name but in this case the term 'Obamacare' carries a pejorative connotation that has been almost exclusively employed by Republicans, or do you disagree?

The President of the United States happens to be black. The PPACA is one of the signature achievements of his presidency thus far. The use of that term before an exclusively black audience who relates closely to the President for many important reasons was not incidental. It surprises me not at all then that the audience responded negatively to the use of the term 'Obamacare.'

[mezz]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That wasn't your original question, Mezz. You never mentioned the race of the candidate, only the party. It really is lame to have to go back and reinvent your question after it gets blown out of the water. I know. It must be tough to be wrong when your whole life revolves around over-compensating for your innate feelings of inadequacy.

John

You mentioned the party, I just mentioned the candidate. The conversation was already about race. Fault me for assuming you knew Obama's race. I'll consider crediting you with taking cognitive bias to new levels though.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by beej

Legislation indeed frequently gets an informal name but in this case the term 'Obamacare' carries a pejorative connotation that has been almost exclusively employed by Republicans, or do you disagree?

The President of the United States happens to be black. The PPACA is one of the signature achievements of his presidency thus far. The use of that term before an exclusively black audience who relates closely to the President for many important reasons was not incidental. It surprises me not at all then that the audience responded negatively to the use of the term 'Obamacare.'

You didn't get the memo:

In January 2011, Celinda Lake, the Democratic pollster, was quoted in a Kaiser Health News article suggesting that ACA's supporters would need to wait to use Obamacare until the president's ratings improved.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...race-obamacare

You're now supposed to refer to PPACA as Obamacare.

[beej]

Originally Posted by bhunter

You didn't get the memo:


You're now supposed to refer to PPACA as Obamacare.

Oh; my bad.

[mezz]

Originally Posted by beej

...an exclusively black audience who relates closely to the President for many important reasons...

Oh yeah. What are those 'many important reasons' anyway? That they are all democrats? That's only one reason. I don't think that's the reason you're referring to though.

I almost can't believe how you liberals can talk down to groups like the NAACP in this way by assuming that they have no political will beyond shared ethnicity. Listen to Allen West. He's constantly calling out people for this kind of racism. Romney came and spoke to this group as a group of voters. He didn't change his tune for them and he didn't assume they were all just voting for the black guy. His appearance before them was an example of what non-racist behaviour is all about. They seem to have known it. Of course the supposedly intellectually superior liberal elite who really do consider themselves everybody's 'masters' dont get it and will build on their already sturdy house of hipocrisy by throwing out accusations of racism at everyone they don't agree with.