24 thoughts on ““I Reject The Premise Of The Question””

1. Rom should have cited a few ways in which Obama represents elites at the expense of blacks (and everybody else). The Solyndra cash didn’t come from Obama’s personal stash.

2. Romney can’t reject the premise – he’s already explicitly written off 47% of the American electorate.

   1. What percent of the electorate did Obama explicitly write off when he said he believes in redistribution?

      1. Zero.

         (Words added to avoid tripping spam filter)

         1. Wrong.

   2. Gerrib, I’m missing the connection between the black US population and the 47% of Americans that don’t pay federal income tax. Would you like to explain yourself?

      1. If you’ve written off just under half the population, it’s fair to ask what other parts of the population you’re writing off.

         1. So Gerrib, does Obama plan to be a President to Texas? I haven’t seen him running any ads in Texas. If he’s written off Texas, such as when he denied federal emergency funds last year. So when is the media going to ask Obama if he plans on being a President for whites?

            1. I could ask why the rugged individualists in Texas need my tax dollars, or why Rick Perry is one minute succeeding from the Union and the next minute asking for Federal aid. (That reminds me of the 5-year-old who announces he’s running away from home as soon as Mommy makes him a sandwich for the road.)

               But I’ll point out instead that Obama calls Perry to extend Federal wildfire aid.

            2. Obama has talked often about being a president to all Americans, e.g. in his election night speech in 2008:

               As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

               And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

            3. Yes, Obama often dispenses bullshit. What’s your point?

            4. Gerrib, did you read your link:

               But the White House has not always been so generous – in April, the administration denied Perry’s request for a federal disaster declaration after fires destroyed 170 homes across the state. That decision was eventually overturned after an appeal by the Texas governor.

               And thanks for admitting that Obama isn’t a President for Texas. We’ll remember that when Illinois goes bankrupt.

            5. Obama also told Latinos via Univision to “punish our enemies”. But that was then, now Univision is asking Obama about Fast and Furious. We know Jim, you already told us time and again those Latinos would have died anyway. But Jim, who really is their enemy? Many Latino Americans still have family in Mexico. Is Obama their President?

            6. My point is that you don’t have to ask Obama whether he’s going to be president to all Americans, because he’s consistently said he would be. You already have his answer.

               those Latinos would have died anyway

               Do you think they wouldn’t have? Do you think that the number of deaths in cartel violence in Mexico is a direct function of US gun law enforcement?

            7. a) He has not consistently said that. He has said many things to indicate otherwise.

               b) To the degree that he has said it, his actions don’t correlate with his words.

            8. Jim, I reject the premise of the question, just as you ignored my point. Rand caught it. You say your point is that Obama has answered the question. Unfortunately for you, he has said other things that contradict his statements. Further, his actions often don’t match his words.

               I will say that I have no problem sharing Jim’s comments with my Latino friends and showing them what an Obama supporter thinks. I’ll note a near 100% disgust in Jim’s comments (you’re part of the 1%), which results in easy pickup of voters for Romney. Most people understand the difference between being aware of murder rates and playing a direct role in the arming murderers. Univision understands this. Apparently, Jim and Obama do not.

3. Reject the premise that African Americans feel pride in Obama? Or reject the premise that the president needs to care what African Americans think?

   I, for one, reject the premise that there are millions of voters who would switch to supporting Romney if only he’d take some shots at the media.

   1. How about rejecting the premise that black people have any more to fear from Romney than they do Obama?

      1. Would Romney question that? He described the 47% as knowing that Obama was better for them than he would be.

         1. Despite all the nonsense that’s been said and written about it, all that Romney was really trying to say was that people who don’t pay income tax aren’t going to vote for him just because he wants income-tax reform — that won’t appeal to them. He didn’t mean that there were no other ways to appeal to them, and he wasn’t “writing them off.”

            1. In other words, Rand, Romney was saying in essence what Al Smith was saying about FDR insuring his re-election by bribing the electorate with hand-outs: “No one hates Santa Claus.” Or what Garet Garrett, way back in New Deal days, critiqued in his clasic “The People’s Pottage:” Americans willing, like Esau of the Bible, to sell off their birthright (liberty) in return for “a mess of pottage” (in our case, a cut of the loot the State rips off its victims).

               But of course Jim and Chris Gerrib are like a couple of Oliver Twists: “Please, sir, more pottage (and less liberty).

            2. Romney said:

               Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that– that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that’s– it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

               I’m no mind reader, but if “they will vote for this president no matter what” is how Romney tries to say “we can appeal to them in other ways,” he needs to work on his communication skills.

            3. …he needs to work on his communication skills.

               I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

4. “I’ve heard of projection, but that’s some pretty impressive racism right there. Who do you work for again? I don’t give a damn what color your skin is – unlike you. And I think there’s probably still 53% of Americans that can manage to pull the ballot lever in a non-racist fashion, but you do give me pause.”

Comments are closed.